In the Danish fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen, an Emperor goes out among his subjects in his underwear. Two swindlers posing as tailors have convinced him he's wearing a suit made from cloth that's invisible to anyone who is stupid. Not wanting to accept that he's stupid, the Emperor parades through his empire believing he's fully dressed.
It now is up to the U.S. Senate to make sure Uncle Sam is not only fully dressed, but dressed for success when he shows up in Copenhagen Dec. 7 to work on a global climate deal.
As far as wardrobes go, President Barack Obama and his team have done a pretty good job packing their suitcases with climate initiatives they've launched under their own authority this year. As The Economist puts it, "America will now not have to go naked into the conference chamber" at Copenhagen.
Even so, without an affirmative vote by the Senate on a respectable climate bill, Uncle Sam will be only half-dressed in the eyes of the global community. That's my reading after a three-country tour of Europe where I spent nine days in meetings with people from 19 nations ranging from Bangladesh to Belgium and Russia to Rwanda. They included a former head of state, former top military leaders, current government officials, scientists, entrepreneurs, academics and other thought leaders in their respective countries.
In my informal sampling of their opinions, I found that a) U.S. leadership remains the linchpin of a global climate deal, and b) the world needs to know that Congress, as well as President Obama, is serious about capping America's greenhouse gas emissions.
Before speculating about why this is the case, let's review the accomplishments the administration already can take to Copenhagen:
Given this list (and these are just the highlights), why do we need the Senate to pass a bill in November?
First, executive orders are no substitute for laws. Presidential orders are impermanent. They are created with the stroke of a pen, and they can be reversed with the stroke of the pen by future presidents. Laws also can be reversed, of course, but not nearly so easily. Many of the nation's landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, were passed by Congress decades ago and remain in force today.
Second, Senate action would affirm that the United States may finally be ready to move beyond its intransigence over the Kyoto Protocol to help ratify an international climate deal. The Senate sent a positive signal in 2005 when, by a vote of 54-43, it approved a resolution stating that:
Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective program of mandatory, market based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that will not significantly harm the United States economy and will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.
But it was the Senate's vote in 1997 -- 95-0 for the Byrd-Hagel resolution -- that sticks in the minds of the international community. It made clear the upper house would not consent to ratification of any agreement that did not include "specific scheduled commitments (by developing countries) to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions." That remains the position of many political leaders in the United States today, including some who speak for the administration.
In addition, the Senate's overall record on international environmental agreements leaves room for uncertainty over its reaction to a climate deal. The Senate has voted in favor of ratification for 69 percent of the environmental treaties it has considered over the past 20 years, but several have been languishing for a long time. As of last March, agreements in legislative limbo included the Law of the Sea Treaty submitted to the Senate in 1994; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species submitted to the Senate in 1983; the Convention on Biological Diversity submitted to the Senate in 1993; the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants submitted to the Senate in 2002; and the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes, submitted to the Senate in 2007.
At the moment, our political leaders are sending very mixed signals on whether the Senate will pass a climate bill before Copenhagen. After Carol Browner was quoted predicting no bill this year, Sen. Barbara Boxer rushed to declare that passage is still possible. Democrat Sen. John Kerry and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed joint optimism in an op-ed for the New York Times:
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.
Let's hope the optimists are correct. Big hurdles remain in the way of an international climate deal; getting over them will require all the momentum we can muster. It would be sweet indeed if the Obama administration struck substantive bilateral agreements with China and India next month. But nothing would be sweeter than a November Miracle from the U.S. Senate.
As they take up the climate issue, Senators should reflect on how the people of other nations see us in the United States. Other nations know we are responsible for nearly a third of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today. They know we remain one of the world's principal sources of new emissions. Refusing to take responsibility for those facts, openly and proactively, makes us less than moral.
However, they also know our history. In the past, we have been the world's best example of innovation, compassion and generosity even when, as in World War II, we had to put American lives, lifestyles and treasure on the line. As I've traveled overseas, I've heard again and again that leadership from the United States remains the world's best hope for ending extreme poverty while avoiding the extreme suffering and instability that would come from unmitigated climate change.
That hope is both flattering and daunting. My hope is that it will not be misplaced.
Steven Chu: Weatherization: Saving Money by Saving Energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
We invented color tvs and Japan dumped them on US and stole the business.
now an HDTV factory costs 25 BILLION and uses 50 BILLION MORE in (local) infrasructure.
Cap and trade is the worst result of lobbying monsters. Do you know who is behind all this? The oil and energy companies. The cost to build all these renewable energy plants and making everything more green will cost trillions. The climate bill essentially requests the world to overhaul it's entire energy infrastructure with far more expensive and far less efficient means of generating energy.
The irony is all the pollution that will come from this. Solar panels have a short life and constantly need to be replaced as where to process one ton of lithium (necessary in all renewable energy sources) creates 1000 tons of waste.
No matter what you believe, it should be very obvious as that these people are masquerading as environmentalists unless they are entirely naive. Who do you think is going to get kick backs for getting a bill passed that gives these companies these contracts to build?
Think...
I'm all for renewable energy and helping third-world countries but it should be based on American initiative, American law, and American generosity. Right now a lot of us are losing the prosperity to be generous, and this would only aggravate that.
As it is going, the only good news out of Copenhagen will be one of no movement.
According to current science this is too little too late - fiddling while Rome burns. A !00% reduction within ten years is both necessary and feasible.
This foolish emphasis on expensive undependable wind and solar will do very little to reduce GHG's. Germany's $100 billion wind/solar program has only managed to maintain GHG's at 1990 levels and has forced a build of dirty coal plants.
China and India are leading the world in GHG' reduction efforts with 120 and 450 gigawatts of nuclear plants planned. Fortunately, it appears the Republicans have forced Obama into doing some tiny bit for nuclear energy - a fraction of what is necessary.
While cap n'trade will encourage nuclear plant construction this one reactor here one and there program is expensive and ineffective. A World War II type all out effort to build 2000 gigawatts of new mass produced nuclear plants, two every week, for 10 years is required. It will be a massive economic booster putting unemployed construction, steel and converted auto plant workers back to work and it will be paid for by quickly ending domestic oil use.
A massive increase in funding for new Gen IV reactors using the current 50000 tons of stored waste as a hundred year source of fuel, and new fusion technologies will ensure a endless supply of clean green energy.
"Mommy, if we have global warming, why is there still winter?"
What we have to do instead is adapt. Climate change is inevitable. This will create new opportunities and pose more challenges. We have to deal with these as they come.
All these treaties and negotiations among politicians are a waste of time. Any treaty they pass will be designed to help their big business buddies, not to mitigate climate change.
US + EU is 10 times bigger than China and has only half as many people. De-growth is obviously not an option for China or India.
You can build the technologies anywhere to do the same thing.
The foolish among us think that humans are too puny to have an effect on something so gargantuan as The Atmosphere. Well, humans are puny, but 6 billion of us is not. 8 or 9 billion of us is definitely gargantuan. We need to develop ways of coping with the effect we are having on the planet, on the ecosystems that sustain the web of life that sustains all life. Because there is no place on the planet right now which we do not impact.
2. You can't outsource energy efficiency strategies. That also doesn't work.
3. The increase in conventional energy costs, especially that of oil, is going to make outsourcing more expensive anyway. Might as well get ahead of the curve.
4. Something we COULD outsource, but which we'd be stupid to, is the invention and development of new green and energy efficient technologies. But if we refuse to get behind climate change mitigation/adaptation, we will in effect be telling China, Europe, and India--"Hey! We're going to stick with the old, polluting, expensive way of doing things. While we're doing that, why don't you train a generation of engineers, scientists, and designers to think creatively and constructively about our impact on the ecosphere, to innovate, and to develop new technologies. Once you're done doing that, we'll try to play catch-up."
Also, are you a climate change denier? If so, what is your alternative hypothesis? Is it that a.) climate change is a hoax, or b.) that it's happening but we shouldn't worry about it because it'll be awesome, or c.) that it's happening but it's totally naturally caused so naturally we shouldn't try to do anything about it, or d.) it's happening but it's totally natural and maybe we should do something about it.
If you are not a climate change denier, what would be your ideal of an international treaty that would help forestall or reduce the effects of climate change?
"The End Of Night: Why We Need Darkness"
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/table-of-contents
"Our Vanishing Night"
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-texts
Why is it that you are not talking about it?
After all, lighting up the undersides of clouds, birds and airplanes is not only wasteful but contributes to the excess Carbon Dioxide because half of energy we use comes from the burning of coal.