April is indeed the cruelest month for environmental activists. Every year around Earth Day, newspapers, magazines, TV shows and Web sites run their annual "green" edition, inevitably filled with "easy tips for saving the planet," like changing light bulbs and re-using plastic bags. It's excruciating every year for serious envirowonks to see complex and challenging policy questions distilled down to "tips" that, let's be brutally honest here, are not saving the planet.
I suppose these tips have their place, and have served a legitimate purpose. In the absence of any governmental policies, voluntary activities by individuals helped the long process of building awareness of the climate problem and increased familiarity with some of the pieces that someday may contribute to a solution. But voluntary action by a few individuals cannot substitute for a real national energy policy, or climate policy.
Despite the preoccupation with paper or plastic, with respect to averting the coming climate disasters, only two things really matter: (1) electric companies must burn less coal, and (2) cars must burn less gasoline. It will take some combination of substituting other fuels and of just driving less and using less electricity. And our federal government needs to set out a plan to make that happen. Everything else is just busy work in the meantime.
Well, meaningful changes in energy or climate policy have not been a realistic option for the past eight years, so enviros have been asking people to bicycle, unplug idle appliances, try the CFLs, etc., in anticipation of the day, someday, when a serious push to change government policy could be attempted.
Well guess what? That "someday" has arrived. By some inconceivable quirk of fate, we find ourselves today with a president who not only understands the urgency of the climate problem but is committed, against all conventional political wisdom, to taking swift and meaningful action to address the threats of climate change. He's being advised by accomplished scientists and savvy policymakers. And he's not only taking action on climate change, he's making sustainability the cornerstone of his whole plan to turn around the economy.
Last week, in response to a 2007 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. The finding sets the stage for the EPA to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and power plants, whether or not Congress takes action to limit carbon emissions.
The coal and oil industries were ready with their response. Surprise: they don't like it. And they have built up a massive army of lawyers, lobbyists, front groups and spin doctors to convince you and the Congress not to like it either.
These are the big boys. Check out Fortune magazine's latest list of the largest American corporations. Seven of the top 10 are companies that sell oil, cars or power plants. Including the new No. 1 company (sorry Wal-Mart), Exxon Mobil, which took in $443 billion last year, making $45 billion in profits. That's $5 million per hour in profits. To put it mildly, they have a good thing going, and they are not about to let a bunch of scientists and activists take it away from them without a fight.
We've seen this before. In 1993, just one month into the first Clinton/Gore term, in an effort to begin a transition to more sustainable energy sources, the administration proposed a "BTU tax" on fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas and gasoline. The administration estimated that gas and electricity costs for a typical family would eventually increase about 4.5 percent. Had that bill passed Congress, we'd be well on our way to averting the looming climate disasters. But it didn't, the threat has become more dire and fixing the problem now will likely be more expensive, and more disruptive.
The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. An onslaught of lobbying, full-page ads from oil companies and an industry-orchestrated public outcry killed the bill in the Senate. The fossil industry spanked that new president so thoroughly, our federal government hasn't seriously debated the subject for 16 years. And the coal and oil companies have been gearing up for this next battle ever since. The tactics they employed then will seem primitive compared to what they have in store now for Obama and company. They will be coming with the long knives. If they succeed as well this year as they did in 1993, who knows how long it will be before another president or Congress tries to go up against the coal and oil lobby.
If Obama cared only about being re-elected, he clearly would not be taking on this battle. The very states likely to be big swing states in 2012 are the states he risks alienating with a strong climate policy. Limit use of coal? Lose votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Push the auto companies to make more fuel efficient cars? Lose votes in Michigan. Raise the cost of electricity or gasoline even a little bit? Lose votes everywhere.
In 2000, candidate George Bush promised to reduce carbon emissions from coal plants. A few months after being elected, he simply reversed himself, saying he changed his mind. He didn't pay any political price for that. Obama probably wouldn't either.
It would be very easy for Obama to say, given the current economic crisis, we're going to put this issue on the back burner, and maybe take another look next year, or in the second term. But on this issue, it appears that Obama is following the advice of his climate scientists, and not of his political advisors. He is way out on a limb, and he needs a huge public show of support for these policies.
OK. Ready for your one hard thing that you must do to save the planet? Here it is:
1. Actively support the Obama administration's efforts to limit carbon emissions.
That's it. That's all you need to do. But really do it. Talk to your friends, relatives and neighbors about it. E-mail your congressman about it. Tell him you want action on climate this year, even if it means paying a little more for gas or electricity. Write your local newspaper. Join a climate organization. Wear a button. Put it on your Facebook. Twitter it, goddammit, whatever that means. Do all that, and you can leave the old light bulbs in place, give your kids the bottled water, and drive your SUV to the end of your driveway to pick up the mail. Just do everything you can to help the administration pass its climate program this year.
Happy Earth Day.
Tax carbon? Sure! Let's forget about the fact that prices will rise for poor people as well as those of us fortunate enough to be at least middle class. Has anyone here actually seen someone apply for heating assistance? Do you know what happens when you can't afford to pay for your heating bill?
Did anyone here notice what happened when gas prices went up during the last couple of years? Let's see. Gas prices increased, costs were passed on to the consumer, people stopped buying as much, the economy slowed, people stopped investing in the housing bubble, housing prices dropped dramatically, and the economy tanked. All based on increases in energy prices for the transportation sector. Now you want to increase it for the rest of the energy sector? And move energy use overseas where they'll build more polluting power plants? The result will probably be lower emissions because there's a lot less economic activity and a lot fewer jobs as a result and a lot more disgruntled people. People who will look at who came up with this cockamamie idea and vote Republican for at least the next two generations.
The regressivity of higher energy prices is a real problem, but there are about a dozen or so viable ways to address it. It may be an excuse, but it's not a reason, to keep postponing action on climate.
Is it just me, or does it seem that republicans are only concerned about climate change when they are promoting nuclear power, and they are only concerned about the tax burden on poor people when they are talking about energy taxes? You guys are getting even more predictable, and not in a good way.
This looks like another example of the "foxnews-ization" of policy debate. People just say anything, no matter how silly, that superficially seems to support their position. Even if they know what they are saying won't hold up to any serious scrutiny. It's just a game of trying to poke the other guy in the eye. This climate problem is serious, as in our children will someday be cursing us for our stupidity serious. And it's time for the grown-ups to start behaving like grown-ups.
Regards to Mrs. Coleman.
If you look at the economy since the 70s, its success is highly dependent on energy prices. When oil prices rose in the early 70s, the economy went into recession. When energy is cheaper, the economy hums. The gas price jump simply was the factor that precipitated the mortgage collapse.
To reverse the effects of climate chage is going to require that people change their lifestyles significantly.
Mrs. Coleman says hi back and she likes me despite our political differences.
Wrong. The energy used in manufacturing and disposing a vehicle is between 5% and 15% of it's lifetime energy usage depending on the model and how many miles it's driven.
I don't know why this lie keeps being repeated over and over. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Huh?
Look folks, electricity already costs money. We pay for it every month. The Electric Companies don't care. In fact they WANT YOU TO USE ELECTRICITY period and they will do everything possible to make sure that they get the most out of YOUR ELECTRIC BILL not less.
Ever hear about your STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION?
Most of the time they vote to INCREASE the rates not decrease.
Want to know something that is really pretty simple?
Less indoor and outdoor lighting, that's what. Remember "Earth Hour"? Remember the photos of cities that turned off those lights in those buildings? You have to ask yourself WHY we keep the lights burning all night in those buildings?
Security? Nope...don't need to leave every light on every floor on.
Want some more evidence?
Just look up on any clear night...you don't see many stars! That's because we waste the electricity to produce light so we can light up the dark sky.
For what? This is just waste! Or do we have "Sidewalks, highways and parking lots in the sky" that must be lit up? Of course not!
Direct the light down to the ground where it is needed or
"Stars UP Lights down"
Saves money too! About $10 Billion per year counting wasted inside and outdoor lighting.
We can thrive on probably half or less the meat we currently eat. Meat maybe 2-4 times as week is more than sufficient. Not only is cutting back good for greening (get meat from grass-fed/organic free range cows, etc) but it is also healthier and in the long run, cheaper.
On another tack, I note with pleasure that the US Military, or at least the Army, is calling for all vehicles to be hybrid within the next few years. They've already got some vehicles built and ready for prototype testing and the contracts are waiting to be signed. There are so many reasons that this makes sense, it's a wonder it's taken this long-- but better late than never. Hopefully we'll see some spillover as hybrid tech becomes more common and available for civilian vehicles...
So many point sources can improve their output, but unless nearly all do it together, it won't matter. Government IS the primary, but not the only answer.
Thanks for the nearly correct perspective, Jimmy. And thanks for pointing out just how important it is to support government action.
Congress is set for life with their pensions, health-care benefits and all the perks that come with being elected. Do you really think they give a crap about the electorate except when its time to vote? They figure they can throw a few entitlements at us, like scraps under the table and we'll be happy. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you, that is usually the case.
You are a very naive person.
We don't have to tell Congress how to get it done. We DO have to tell Congress we want accountability, responsibility, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty.
Congress' most lethal weapon against the environment has been gridlock. For most of Clinton's second term and W's first term, Congress dithered about how to address air pollution from old dirty coal plants. In the end, they did nothing, and left it to the EPA, and the courts, to work it out.
But that won't work in this case anymore. EPA signaled last week that it is going to move forward with carbon regulation, with or without additional direction from Congress. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already rejected the Bush EPA's absurd position (basically: "no state can regulate carbon because that's our job, and we are not sure if we have the authority to do anything, and if we do have authority, we are not sure we want to use it.")
So Congress can act or they can not act. But if Congress doesn't act, the other two branches of our federal government are ready to go ahead without them. So it's all the more important to demand that if Congress does do something about climate, they do something constructive. All the more reason to get to know your congressman, and make sure he knows how you feel.
If you were you would realize that creating new industries and power sources from renewable or solar or wave or other sources and allowing for point generation of power will employ MILLIONS of AMERICANS and grow our economy PAST the foolish trap we dug ourselves into by relying on fossil fuels and terminally dangerous nuclear plants.
Just think of this word: TRANSITION. Then get just a little bit creative and imagine a few new industries REPLACING a few old ones. Run that scenario through your economic models. Can you see the growth now?
I know you were not around in the seventies when the industrials which modernized with energy efficiencies supplied by high tech companies in the US saved billions in energy costs and grew. I realize that you didn't notice that California grew tremendously over the last 30 years without increasing their energy use substantially since they got the message back then too.
When are you going to open your eyes?
And you didn't answer my question. The writer did not talk about new technology for existing energy sources, he was talking about changing the energy sources entirely from fossil fuels to God knows what.
1. Retire
Your retirement will do more to reduce climate change than driving a hybrid or recycling. Retiring early is easy if you are green. Getting rid of your S.U.V. and bottled water, forget the Obama administration and their carbon credit fraud scheme, will enable you to save $400,000 towards retirement enabling you to retire 10 years earlier. You can calculate how going green saves your retirement here:
http://www.iplanretirement.com/retiregreen.html
Happy Earth Day Everyone!
Me, I can't retire...I've already been outsourced.
The point being, it's not enough to change the fuels we use and still allow unforgiveable environmental destruction, while enriching the same old Robber Barons. We have a "blank slate" right now, and we should only support SUSTAINABLE energy policy which does not deplete our water or destroy our open spaces. Point of use solutions in the built environment MUST be the centerpiece of any energy plan, not more faraway, wasteful, expensive Big Energy infrastructure.
If you want to support something that works, all you need to do is look at Germany and Spain - paying regular people for producing clean power from their roofs is the best plan for the environment, the economy, property values and democracy. It also leads people to conserve much more energy,
Feed in tariffs for point of use generation in the built environment are the way forward.
"Birth Control and Bicycles"
http://www.letsactnow.org/How-Urgent/
Our political duty as citizens:
1. Actively support the Obama administration's efforts to limit carbon emissions.
Our individual duty:
1. Stop consuming MEAT AND MILK -- go vegan! You can do it today and you'll even save money. http://www.vegclimatealliance.org/
I don't know many people, including myself, who are willing to make a radical shift in lifestyle, unless our lives are at stake. That's why folks like George Will of WaPo can continue to deny global warming and still occupy a major opinion site. Those who promise an easier way have always had the larger audience.
That's why politics is important. Decisions that affect the future require leadership. We have just emertged (I hope) from 30 freakin years where Americans have declared that we do not want leadership that will change things. (Recall Reagan's "still morning in America," and the voter response to Mondale's statement that we need to raise taxes, not to mention giving GW Bush two terms.) We face life-and-death political issues. Don't expect much help. We don't even get it from the faux liberals whose failure to stick by their principles gave us two Bush terms.
In the relig biz we know "living your principles" as vocation. You do what you must because it is who you are.
We don't have "Sidewalks or Parking Lots in the sky" now do we?
So, why do we spend pointless billions of dollars to light the night sky?