BLOGS

Notes and cases for:

Events and meetings

read the news, oh, boy

Links:
ecology
social justice
grassroots
peace/nonviolence

local area political directory

 

 

 

THINKING INSIDE THE BOX: AN EXPLORATION IN HONOR OF INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE ACTION DAY

"Think outside the box," is something we hear all the time. And, yet, at the same time, the standard practice is thinking inside the box, at least among those having an influence on government policies. Worse, it seems to be a matter of thinking inside a box, which, itself, is inside of another box. The inner box contains a reductionist maze, in which, every aspect of policies under consideration is translated into financial terms, the winners and the losers. Financially, that is; if we don't get this right pretty soon, we will all be losers.

For example, at the same time that climate science indicates that drastic reduction of CO2 emissions is essential, the take on it among many in Congress is that cap and trade, coupled with indeterminate offsets, is an effective way of meeting the challenge. In the two climate bills, Waxman-Markey, passed by the house, and Kerry-Boxer, recently introduced in the Senate, the emissions reduction targets are altogether insufficient. The first calls for 17% reduction by 2020, using a baseline of 2005, which works out to about 4%, with a 1990 baseline. The Kerry-Boxer bill sounds better at first, calling for 20% by 2020, but it also uses a baseline of 2005, which works out to be about 7%, with a 1990 baseline. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calls for reductions of 25-40%, using 1990 as a baseline, several times to almost six times as much.

It's not as though the IPCC is at the top end on estimates of what would be required in terms of carbon reductions. It has consistently erred on the cautious side of the severity of the problem, as well as what would be necessary to contend with climate change. Others have been much less cautious. John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says that, in order to avoid an average temperature rise of 4 degrees C., the emissions reduction target in the US should be 100% by 2020, with other industrial countries following suit by 2030 and China by 2035. Two years ago, in his book, Heat: How to Keep the Planet from Burning, George Monbiot, projects an average cut of 90% in the richer countries by 2030, as necessary to avoid an increase in average temperature of 2 degrees C. (which may no longer even be possible.)

Kerry-Boxer even contains provisions touting nuclear power and the oxymoron, "clean coal," as solutions to the climate crisis. The Senators actually say, "nuclear energy is the largest provider of clean, low-carbon, electricity...." Of course, it's no secret that there are portions of the nuclear cycle, such as uranium mining and milling of nuclear fuel that do generate carbon emissions, and that there are numerous other problems, like radiation exposure and the disposal of radioactive waste. All of this was laid out in some detail in Helen Caldicott's Nuclear Power is Not the Answer (2006), but ignored by the good Senators, as they try for some GOP votes to finally get cap and trade through the Senate. (It's said that the third time is the charm.)

Is passage of either piece of legislation what we need to do, assuming that what we're trying to do is fight climate change? Do we need any cap and trade bill? Is anybody other than those most closely connected to Wall Street, and a very few inside the beltway environmental organizations, even interested in cap and trade? The bill that goes well beyond cap and trade is called America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 and was introduced by Rep. John B. Larson (D-Ky.) in March of this year. (http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/03/06/new-larson-bill-raises-the-bar-for-congressional-climate-action/) (HR 1337) While it plays the same game that we saw with cap and trade in terms of the emissions reduction targets (the 2005 baseline), at least it guarantees the target by increasing the carbon tax, if the target will be missed. It covers the usual objections to the carbon tax, by providing relief in a couple of ways; by providing direct assistance to impacted individuals and industries and by the payroll tax shift: "96% of revenues would be returned to U.S. families. The recapture percentage reaches 99% in year 15."

The carbon tax levies what we want to see decreased: carbon and adds to what we want to see supported: work and income.

James Hansen, our premier climate scientist, testified before Congress over 21 years ago. Occasioned by the severity of the heat and drought of the summer of 1988, Hansen's testimony went far beyond the immediate effects of that summer. In fact, he was quite disparaging of the idea that any one season could be attributed to global warming. What he had come to do was much different. He came to look at the long-term trend and to see what that could tell us about the planet heating up. That trend showed some amazing, headline grabbing results. Whatever your period - the last thirty years or the last century, the planet had warmed, based on Weather Bureau records, at a rate of three times the maximum that could be attributed to natural variation - at the 99% confidence level.

Since then, while climate change has accelerated and while the estimates, as put out by the IPCC, have all proven to be much too modest, efforts to contend with climate change have been virtually non-existent. The time has come and very nearly gone to act. We can no longer afford the games of politicians as they attempt to shape the legislation to benefit their campaign contributors and the armies of lobbyists. It's a time for statesmen, prepared to act for the common good. And, it's also time for massive popular pressure on the politicians that our broken electoral system gives. Make them do what needs to be done, by making it impolitic not to; and when they do the right thing, watch their backs. Don't let the corpocracy and the Right Wing come get them, without a strong response.

One of the most powerful images from the 350 campaign is the photo of the leaders of the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean averaging all of four feet above sea level. They are signing a document asking that the Copenhagen act in a strong way to reduce carbon emissions. In the United States, with some powerful exceptions, we have been fortunate so far. But, then, a 20-foot rise in the sea level would put quite a bit of Manhattan under water. Of course, Katrina was certainly instructive, as were the recent rains in the SE, wherein Georgia, which had seen several years of drought, was suddenly put under water by torrential rains. A Sixty Minute segment explained at one point that there were no deniers of global warming among Western fire fighters; they can see that the fire season starts earlier every year, as the underbrush is drier every year. The northern forests are no longer the "heat sink" they once were, primarily due to beetle infestation and other effects of global warming. Yes, it is time …