OPED, FEBRUARY 12, 2012
Marin Voice: 'Carbon fee' a good investment By Rachel F. Ginis and Bob Brown PRESIDENT Barack Obama was right in his State of the Union address to make a clean energy agenda his second pillar in creating long-lasting prosperity in America. The president is calling for ending subsidies to energy companies that are taking in record profits, for American leadership in the burgeoning clean energy technologies, for retrofitting existing buildings to reduce energy use and employ our building trades, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But every State of the Union address, from the days of President Carter, has included proposals to become more energy independent, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to reduce the environmental and economic risks of climate change. In his 2006 address, President Bush vowed to end our "addiction to oil." After 30 years of good intentions, why haven't we made a dent in our energy consumption? Between 1990 and 2007 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases increased 17 percent, three quarters of which comes from burning fossil fuels. The shift to renewables has been stymied by a lopsided energy market that provides subsidies for the production of fossil fuels, but doesn't take into account the costs of extracting and burning them. The U.S. gives about $9 billion in annual tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The system hasn't changed because of the influence of energy corporations on the government.
The energy industry in theU.S. spends over $360 million each year lobbying Congress. The largest individual recipient was Speaker of the House John Boehner. It's hard to have faith that this Congress can arrive at a bipartisan energy policy to significantly decrease our addiction to fossil fuels. Is there a way to move the market toward efficiency and renewable energy? We think so. It's simple, straightforward and has bipartisan appeal. It's called a Carbon Fee and Dividend. It was first proposed in Washington by former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Party. A similar bill has been recently introduced in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242). Here's how it works: A steadily rising fee is placed on carbon-based fuels at the point of production or port of entry. All revenue is returned in equal shares to individuals to offset increased energy costs. A household that has a lower-energy lifestyle would see a profit. Those with large or multiple homes, fuel-guzzling vehicles, recreational vehicles, etc. will pay more for those choices. With a guaranteed price signal, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency will become good investments, creating jobs and renewing our technological dominance. Environmental and human health will improve.
Inglis said, "If we just do two things, attach all costs to all fuels and eliminate all subsidies for all fuels, then free enterprise can solve the energy and climate challenge." The Congressional Budget Office agrees that a carbon fee is the most economically efficient option for reducing carbon emissions. It is estimated that the Save Our Climate Act would raise and return more than $2.6 trillion in revenue and reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 25 percent in the first 10 years. The average dividend per person would start at about $160 per person, rise to $590 in year five and $1,170 by year 10. Individuals would see the tangible benefits of reducing their energy use. Marin has made great strides toward a clean energy agenda with green building
ordinances and our very own clean energy agency, but they have been hard won. Putting a steadily rising price on carbon would vitalize and duplicate these efforts in communities through out California and across the nation. This is the conversation we need to be having going in to the next election, anything else would be irresponsible. Rachel F. Ginis of Corte Madera is a green residential designer and building specialist. She is also the founder of the Marin Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. Bob Brown is the former community development director of San Rafael and adjunct faculty at Dominican University. For more information on the Fee and Dividend option, visit the Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org) and/or the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org)
COLUMN, FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Oil sands and warming go together By Cathy Orlando, Cheryl McNamara, and George Morrison Discourse on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the B.C. coast got off to a raucous start with name calling, accusations and concerns that Canada's economy is at stake even before the hearings in Kitimat, B.C. even began. Underlying the debate is the assumption that the oil sands are good for Canada's economy. But are they more a Faustian bargain? Is Canada sacrificing the stability of the environment and other key economic sectors for the sake of generating as much money as possible from a non-renewable commodity? While concerns over the pipeline's safety are legitimate -any spill could seriously affect the ecologically sensitive west coast and Fraser River for hundreds of kilometres -there are more widespread concerns that have largely been ignored. If given the green light, the Gateway pipeline will serve as a conduit for accelerated oil sands development. The Harper government prefers not to put oil sands and climate change in the same sentence, but they do go together. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warns that development of remaining oil sands and coal reserves will tip the planet towards dangerous global warming. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuel has increased the parts per million (ppm) of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is warming the planet. Civilization has prospered for 10,000 with greenhouse gases stable at 280 ppm up until the dawn of the industrial revolution. That figure is now at 392 ppm and rising by an astonishing 1.5 to two ppm per year. Changes of just one or two degrees Celsius to the global mean temperature can cause radical changes in the climate -widespread drought in some regions, flooding in others, and more severe and extreme weather events, which undermine agriculture, economic development and public health. Indeed, many parts of the globe, including Canada, are beginning to experience extreme weather-related disasters due to a hotter and moister atmosphere. Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurer, has documented more than 30,000 natural catastrophes worldwide over 40 years. According to the reinsurer, the number of registered loss occurrences from extreme weather throughout the world has almost tripled since 1980. Aside from the costs associated with a warming climate -- the 2011 floods in Manitoba cost the province $815 million -accelerated oil sands development is costly in other ways. While it is projected that the pipeline could contribute $131 billion to Canada's gross domestic product and $27 billion in tax
revenues between 2016 and 2030, Canada's manufacturing sector contributed $159.7 billion to the economy in 2010 alone. However, our manufacturing sector has been in decline since 2001. This is partly due to the rapidly developing oil sands, which has helped strengthen Canada's currency. There is a name for this phenomenon. It's called the Dutch disease, so named in the 1970s when the discovery of gas in the North Sea drove up the Dutch currency. The high Dutch guilder increased export prices and led to the decline of Holland's manufacturing sector. For Canada, this is beginning to look a lot like deja vu. Other warnings are coming from unusual quarters. The very conservative International Energy Agency recently advised countries not to lock themselves into insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy systems -- which the Gateway Pipeline will surely do for Canada.
Clearly a national debate on the future of the oil sands is warranted. Happily Canadians have an opportunity to do just that. Provincial energy ministers have begun meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources to chart a national energy strategy. While some see this as a means to fast track oil sands development, others, such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Citizens Climate Lobby are calling for a broad-based carbon pricing mechanism that is transparent and predictable to help optimize energy conservation, as well as spur development and innovations in clean energy. According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, "switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities." We couldn't agree more.
Cathy Orlando is project manager and Sudbury leader for Citizens Climate Lobby Canada. Cheryl McNamara is communications officer and Beaches East York group leader. George Morrison is Parkdale High Park group leader.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 5, 2012
Madeleine Para: Obama: Don't give up on climate act yet President Barack Obama mentioned climate change just once in his State of the Union speech, saying that he didn't expect Congress to adopt comprehensive climate change legislation. He should consider the world he is leaving to his daughters and make climate change his top priority instead of giving up on Congress. The consequences of our energy decisions in the next five years will determine how high a price our children will pay. If we do nothing, they'll endure refugee and humanitarian crises due to rising sea levels, loss of arable land and extreme storms. While Obama is correct that cap and trade is dead, there's a better approach. The Save Our Climate Act would charge energy
companies a fee on carbon emissions at the source, so they pay for their pollution. The fee starts low and rises every year, making clean energy and efficiency more attractive to investors and consumers than fossil fuels. The first year's revenues would be used for deficit reduction. After that, American households would receive an equal portion of the revenues to offset rising energy prices. For conservatives, this offers an option that's market-driven and doesn't add to the size of government. When leaders fail to lead, it's up to citizens to take charge. We must insist Obama and Congress enact the Save Our Climate Act. Madeleine Para, Madison, Member, Citizens Climate Lobby
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012
Outrageous rhetoric will surely backfire The Harper government has attempted to discredit all who oppose its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline as “radicals” backed by foreign money. Internal government memos released recently apparently even refer to pipeline opponents as “enemies of Canada.” This outrageous rhetoric is so obviously false that it will surely backfire. While there is certainly interest in this issue by American environmental groups — after all, tar sands pollution will not stop at the border — the vast majority of “foreign money” and influence in the pipeline approval process comes from the foreignbased oil companies involved and the international markets who want the oil they will produce here. Tar sands oil will not be for Canadians and most of the money earned will also leave the
country. On the other hand, all the risk of oil spills on land or on the pristine B.C. coast remains with the local residents, wildlife and ecosystem surrounding the pipeline. The Harper government is also glossing over the fact that the land it is presuming to build the pipeline on is traditional aboriginal land which has never been ceded to any government. Mr. Harper and his spokespeople are trying hard to portray these legitimate stakeholders in the process as “hijacking” the political process. Actually, Mr. Harper, these people are the political process. If you believe in democracy then listen to your citizens! Dr. Mark Polle Red Lake
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012
Plan your own retirement, if you can, Harper says Last week, in Davos, Switzerland, our Prime Minister made several surprising statements, one being his intent to revamp seniors benefits and retirement income programs including age eligibility issues. How surprised we seniors are to hear that when not a whisper had been heard during the most recent election! This statement becomes even more surprising when our government plans to continue the subsidy of Canadian mining companies’ Social Responsibility Projects abroad. With our tax dollars yet! Also surprising was Mr. Harper’s use of the term “unsustainable” when discussing Old
Age Security! When did he learn the meaning of that term? Canadian politicians are being urged to work on the development of a sustainable economy within a sustainable environment, by people like myself who believe that we cannot have one without the other. And what are we getting? Among other things, like “major domestic reforms,” the fullscale development of the Alberta tar sands, known around the world as the source of “dirty oil.” Patricia Weese Red Lake
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 3, 2012
Ending green program unwise Re: Government pulls plug on ecoEnergy Retrofit program, Jan. 31 When are we going to see a headline that the government plans to end the millions of dollars in annual subsidies to oil and gas companies — some of the most profitable companies in the world? My partner and I participated in the ecoEnergy Retrofit program. Not only did the energy retrofits improve the comfort and energy efficiency of our 92-year-old home, it reduced our utility
bills and employed 11 contract workers to do the work. This program helps reduce energy waste and greenhouse gases, and employs local people, whereas government handouts to fossil fuel companies encourage waste and contribute to global warming. Isn’t it time that the government prioritize clean energy and join the 21st century? Jane Moffat Toronto
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2 – 8, 2012
Climate change in Hamilton Hamilton’s financial challenges with stormwater and flooding appear likely to get worse as the evidence accumulates of escalating climate change and local numbers align with global shifts. While only a couple of 2011 local storms (in July and October) caused damage, globally the last two years have been the wettest on record and generated catastrophic flooding in many parts of the world. Despite a strong La Nina, 2011 was also the ninth warmest year on record and the 35th consecutive year that average global temperatures were above average. Hamilton temperatures are rising at close to the global average and rainfall amounts have also gone up according to a conservation authority study that examined records for the last 41 years. The global average temperature increase so far is 0.8°C, while Hamilton’s is up 0.9°C in the period examined by the HCA study. Annual precipitation has only risen a little over an inch per year but more of that has been coming in extreme bursts as predicted by climate change scientists. In fact, in most respects those predictions are turning out to be underestimations – not surprising given that science demands a high level of proof for forecasts. The arctic ice cap, for example, was originally predicted to melt by 2050, but we now could be headed to ice– free summers later this decade. In 2011, the extent of arctic ice was more than a third less than the average between 1979 and 2000
and was far below that average in every month last year. While extreme weather–related events continued to batter Asia and Latin America last year, both Australia and the United States were also hit hard. Nearly 60 percent of the US endured either extreme drought or extreme flooding in 2011 and 14 separate events broke the $1 billion mark in damages. The previous one–year record was eight. In Canada there was extreme flooding in Quebec, and across Manitoba and Saskatchewan last year. Hamilton recorded 68mm of rain in a 24–hour period in mid– October, and had a very wet spring but in smaller daily amounts. Windsor wasn’t so lucky – setting an all– time record for the wettest year ever during that same October storm that drenched Hamilton. By the beginning of December, it had recorded 1477mm compared to a normal precipitation total of 844mm and convincing city councillors to offer a basement flooding subsidy for the installation of sump pumps and backwater valves. That’s a step taken by Hamilton council in the fall of 2009 and last year the city extended its “protective plumbing program” to all owner–occupied homes connected to the sewer system. It provides up to $2000 in grants and now requires that all new homes include backwater valves. Carbon dioxide concentrations now stand
at 392 parts per million – exactly 40 percent higher than the pre–industrial period level of 280 ppm. The maximum safe level of 350 ppm was exceeded more than 20 years ago, and current concentrations will force nearly another degree even if all emissions stopped today. Locally the unusual January temperatures both conform to predictions and follow an established trend. The HCA study found average winter temperatures have increased nearly twice as fast as the annual rate.
“Average winter mean temperature has increased 1.7°C”, notes the HCA study, while summer averages are only up 0.3°C, and spring and fall ones have climbed 0.7°C. Precipitation has dropped in the winter season, climbed marginally in spring, and more substantially during the summer months. In the wake of the study, the HCA board directed their staff to develop a climate change strategy that is “designed to increase the climate resilience of the watersheds.” Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012
We must act on ‘weird scary’ change Weird weather is taking its toll
There’s weird strange and there’s weird scary. I suspect non-human creatures are experiencing the latter this non-winter. The human ones not mentioned in the article should be, too. We are as dependent on weather stability for our food. Ask a farmer if weather matters.
weather events. But scientists by training are cautious, careful and reluctant to ring alarm bells. That has led most to say we don’t know enough to blame individual weather catastrophes on global climate change. It has meant nearly all their forecasts are turning out to be underestimates.
Last year was the second wettest in global records, exceeded only by 2010. Despite the cooling effects of La Nina, it was the ninth warmest as well. In the United States, 60 per cent of the country endured extreme flooding or extreme drought, and catastrophic floods hit Thailand, Australia, the Philippines, Brazil, Pakistan, El Salvador and South Korea, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec’s Richelieu River area.
There is now overwhelming evidence of scary climatic changes already happening, thus no excuse for Canada to increase pollution with tarsands exploitation and dangerous pipeline schemes. Already the tarsands emit 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a day — equal to a million cars driving 500 kilometres each. We need to end the stranglehold of the fossil fuel corporations on the federal government.
For more than 20 years, climate scientists have been warning of more extreme (weird)
Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Climate change High marks to the Tribune for the thorough, thoughtful front-page article about the climate change impact of aging coal-fired power plants. Climate change is real, as made clear through decades of hard work by thousands of scientists. Their painstaking efforts have untangled the puzzle of Earth's energy balance and our growing impact on it from fossil fuel emissions. If we fail to come to grips with this challenge, the consequences to the health, wealth and security of future generations could be dire. Solutions exist. All that's lacking is the political will to put them into action. Even industry sources such as the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the utilities themselves recognize the need for action. But because of Washington gridlock, including blockage of the excessively complex 2010 Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the only option available for the administration to
address climate change has been through contentious and difficult regulations, as detailed in the article. This is too bad, because a much simpler and more effective approach, supported by scientists and economists all across the political spectrum, is a carbon tax-and-rebate mechanism such as the Save our Climate Act of 2011. This would impose a fee on fossil carbon at its source (coal mine, oil well, etc.), with most of the revenue returned back to American households in the form of a rebate or tax break. This would uncork a flood of private investments in renewable and carbon-neutral energy. It would also encourage measures to greatly increase energy efficiency. Every member of our Illinois congressional delegation should support this and put this problem to rest for once and for all. We owe it to our children. Perry Recker, Blue Island Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2012
Save Our Climate Act would get the job done In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama spoke of the need for a “cleanenergy standard” to help manufacturers eliminate energy waste. There is not nearly enough trust in his administration to do this. Fortunately, there is another path to this goal: the Save Our Climate Act. It would focus on
the problem of our undefended atmosphere and put a fee on fossil carbon dumped there. No, it doesn’t have a big corporate lobby — but it would get the job done. Peter Peteet, Atlanta
OPED, JANUARY 26, 2012
Obama was right to nix Keystone pipeline By Madeleine Para In the David and Goliath battle over the Keystone XL pipeline, big oil has lost twice now, and their supporters are howling. They tried to force the president to grant a permit for the pipeline by attaching it to the payroll tax cut bill in December, but Obama stood firm and rejected the pipeline last week. This is an amazing victory for environmentalists, since six months ago approval was considered certain. Though we likely haven’t heard the last of the project, we actually stalled Big Oil! The Keystone XL pipeline now is likely to be an election issue. As a climate change activist, I say that this is excellent news. It will give us opportunities to bring up the climate crisis, and how to solve it, with candidates and voters everywhere. We’ll no doubt be outspent many times over by the fossil fuel industry, but if we use the same creativity and tactics (focused actions, civil disobedience and international pressure) that got us this far, we can build the political will for further victories. Big Oil wants the American public to think that the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide jobs and oil. They will repeat their lies and distortions over and over. Here’s what they aren’t saying in their ads and speeches. • The Keystone XL pipeline is a lousy way to create jobs. It would only create a few hundred permanent ones and a few thousand temporary construction jobs, according to an independent study by Cornell University. Considering the billions invested, that’s a paltry level of
job creation. The same investment in energy efficiency, wind and solar would provide tens of thousands of jobs. • The pipeline isn’t about piping tar sands oil to U.S. markets. It’s an export pipeline. It would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf for export overseas, and would actually increase Midwestern gasoline prices by eliminating an oversupply here. The pipeline is about profits. • Last year fuel was the No. 1 export in the U.S., and for the first time in 60 years we exported more fuel than we imported. • U.S. gas consumption is down to its lowest level in 12 years, according to the Oil Price Information Service, despite adding 31 million more cars in that time. But the pipeline battle also lets us state why building infrastructure for more dirty tar sands oil is all wrong. Canadian tar sands oil needs to stay in the ground. The decisions we make as a society in the next five years about our energy investments will determine the degree of upheaval our children and grandchildren will face from a warming planet. If we build everything that’s planned, according to the World Energy Report, we guarantee a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in the global average temperature. At that level we risk catastrophe — millions of refugees from rising sea levels, food shortages, extreme storms and mass extinctions.
To keep from fighting Big Oil one pipeline at a time, we need to push Congress to place a fee on carbon emissions when the fuel is extracted or imported into the country. A fee that starts low and rises steadily will shift investment away from extreme fossil fuels and into clean energy and efficiency.
Returning the revenues equally to every household will ease the transition as fossil fuel prices rise. This is the big battle we need to undertake, to move us off all fossil fuels. The fight against the Keystone XL pipeline is a stepping stone to a new and better energy system.
Madeleine Para is the Madison group leader for Citizens Climate Lobby and the cocoordinator of the new 350 Madison Climate Action. She was arrested in front of the White House last August as part of a massive civil disobedience action against the Keystone XL pipeline.
OPED, JANUARY 25, 2012
FORUM: Smart energy policy is path to healthy U.S. By Amy Bennett An olive branch to the North County Times: I agree with the Jan. 20 XL pipeline editorial, "Environmental Disaster," we need energy. However, I have never heard the claim, as the editorial states: "If we don't buy any more oil, then the rest of the world will follow along and we can all move to 'clean' energy." I have heard, "If the U.S. leads on smart energy policy, the world will follow." Can we agree with 97 percent of climate scientists: Warming is a serious man-made problem, and we must lower CO2 as soon as possible? If you decide not to believe in climate change, you can always find an agreeable source, but is their science credible? The National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change use the peer review process. Peer review is not perfect, but it is reliable; it is the reason we trust cars, airplanes and medicines. Dr. Muller of UC Berkeley, a Koch-funded former skeptic, said, "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. ... Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate." If we agree to disagree on science, we have other reasons to promote renewables. John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, predicted that gas would reach $5 per gallon by the end of 2012. Pipeline or not, gas prices
will keep rising. Indian wind-farm builder Mytrah Energy claims it's able to produce wind power as cheap as coal. The International Energy Agency, founded with the support of Henry Kissinger, suggests we have four years to transition our infrastructure to renewables. Let's catch up. The NCT suggests the pipeline oil would be sold here, but it was never slated to be sold in the U.S. We have other resources. The Department of Energy predicts that 20 percent of U.S. energy will come from wind by 2030, supporting 500,000 jobs. (The coal industry supports only 174,000 jobs nationwide.) A Cornell study states the pipeline would create only 2,500 to 4,650 jobs, lasting less than two years. A TransCanada executive admitted only several hundred permanent jobs would come from the pipeline. Even if the pipeline created a million jobs, when do we follow the axiom, 'First, do no harm'? If 97 percent of doctors say your child needs treatment, how do you ignore them? Band-Aid jobs now won't fool our kids; just ask them. There is a compromise. Economists tell us to tax things we want less of to encourage what we want more of. This "Fee and Dividend" legislation won't increase the size of government. If we tax fossil fuels and return revenues to Americans, it will spur private capital in renewable technology and create jobs. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242) needs support in Congress. It will take human energy and a focus on doing the right thing, not the convenient thing. Amy works for Citizens Climate Lobby.
350 or bust BLOG, JANUARY 24, 2012
Why I Am Putting All My Eggs in the Citizens Climate Lobby Basket By Christine Penner Polle Citizens Climate Lobby is a well-organized grassroots organization made up of Canadians and Americans who want a sustainable future for their children, and are willing to work on creating the political will for a sustainable climate. In the process, they are empowered to claim their own political power in a way many citizens don’t these days. I have been a CCL volunteer for over a year, and have learned more about climate change and working for political change than I ever would have imagined. Today’s guest blogger is Cathy Orlando, Project Manager for Citizens Climate Lobby Canada. Cathy recently left her job as the Science Outreach Coordinator at Laurentian University in Sudbury to devote her time and energy to creating the political will for a sustainable climate. The “Cathy Orlando Environmental Stewardship Award“ was created in 2011 by the national science organization Let’s Talk Science to recognize an outstanding and innovative environmental activity by a “Let’s Talk Science” volunteer. Truth be told I am not passionate about climate change. My true passions are poverty, children and community. I know that climate change is going to severely impact all of those things. Thus I have put all my eggs for the next while into the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) basket to push for a price on carbon pollution federally and bilaterally with the USA. I feel that CCL has the capacity to make this happen because they are laser focused, are using a proven business plan and are promoting a properly vetted economic plan.
As Sudbury’s group leader, last year I lead the CCL chapter on less than 10 hours per month and usually closer to 5 hours per month. The three most important things CCL Leaders do are: First, gather a small group of people around them that meets once a month to improve their education on all aspects of climate change and motivate each other. It can be on the Saturday monthly call but alternatively you can listen to the 20 minute education piece anytime anywhere online after it airs. The current ones are on their home page. Second, develop a Gandhian-like relationship with your Member of Parliament around the issue of climate change. Present the truth of the science of climate change and our economic plan (Carbon Fee and Dividend), ask them to consider it, and listen carefully to their responses. The listening part is the most important part of being a lobbyist because we seek to find common ground and help eliminate barriers that might stand in the way of a politicians doing the right thing; and appeal to the “big thing” that lies within all of us Get articles, letters to the editor and editorials published in your local media so that people can become more educated about the truth of the economics, social impacts, health impacts, public impacts, global security
impacts and science of climate change and thus the politicians will be able to act. Empowerment is energy-giving There is something magical that happens when you do this work. At first you might have to overcome inertia and get out of your comfort zone, but you grow as a person. You become empowered. People around you become empowered. It is very energy giving work. People don’t believe when I say I am a shy and sensitive person. I have spoken truth to power and been in the media more times than I can count now. As well, I am making friends for life across this great continent. When all is said and done I will be able to say to my grandchildren some day, “I did my very best at the time of the climate crisis.” I know when we get a price on carbon pollution, not only will I have peace of mind, but I will have grown tremendously as a
human being and have made the most incredible friends for life. My gut feeling about the effectiveness of Citizens Climate Lobby is shared by the Grandfather of Climate Change, Dr. James Hansen: “When you go away from here the most important thing you can do, in my opinion, is to support the Citizens Climate Lobby because they are pressuring the government to do what is in the public’s interest, not big business.” Nov. 6, 2011 Washington DC To find out how you can work to create the political will for a sustainable climate, and realize your own personal and political power at the same time, email Cathy at ccl.sudbury@citizensclimatelobby.org. Ask her about joining the introductory call on the first and third Wednesdays of every month, or go to the Citizens Climate Lobby website for more info.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012
Delaying Keystone pipeline the right step USA TODAY's editorial misses the mark on the Keystone XL pipeline. That so-called steady stream of oil that would have been transported by the Keystone XL was not guaranteed for U.S. markets. Why should we have put our country at risk of more oil spills so that Canada could sell its tar sands to the highest bidder? Even the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out that the pipeline wouldn't have decreased U.S. reliance on Middle East oil ("Editorial: Obama's pipeline decision delays energy security"). President Obama made the right decision in denying the permit. Even as a symbolic gesture, it reflects widely held opinion that fossil fuels are not the energy source of the
future. Other countries know this: Within the past few months, China has set carbon emissions limits, and Australia passed a carbon tax. Many countries in Europe get large portions of their energy supply from renewables. Why must the U.S. continue to wallow in an energy plan better suited to the 20th century? Let's continue fighting dirty projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline and finally pass some meaningful climate legislation such as a carbon tax. Doing so would give us a jumpstart on the inevitable clean energy economy of the future. Erica Flock Reston, Va.
MY VIEW, JANUARY 19, 2012
What will we tell the children? By Anne Dillon Last year at the end of October, UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who formerly had been skeptical that the earth was warming, concluded his own ($600,000) two-‐year study (partially funded to the tune of $150,000 by the Koch brothers), undertaken to determine for himself whether or not climate change is real. His findings showed that the world’s surface temperature has risen 1.6 degrees Farenheit (1 degree Celcius) since the 1950s, a finding that corroborated earlier findings of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA. This temperature increase is largely due to the high levels of carbon that are dumped into our atmosphere each and every day. Scientists tell us that the acceptable upper limit of carbon in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. Presently that number is in the 392 range and rising all the time (prior to the Industrial Revolution it hovered around 275). In large part, our elevated carbon levels are due to our hopeless addiction to a fossil fuel economy where moneyed, corporate interests pull the strings of Republican puppets in Congress, blocking any serious hope of energy reform given that their addiction to this dirty oil money is as appalling as the average taxpayer’s passivity in the face of it. In November of last year, findings published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an esteemed United Nations panel that periodically reviews
ongoing developments in climate research, reported that some of the extreme weather around the world is a consequence of human-‐ induced climate change, and we can expect these severe weather patterns to worsen in the years ahead. These patterns include more record-‐breaking temperatures, increased coastal flooding, and greater extremes of precipitation in general. Compounding the severity of this IPCC assessment, the U.S. Energy Department recently reported that greenhouse gas emissions jumped by the highest rate ever in 2010. Newsflash to parents and grandparents: If we continue dumping carbon into the environment at our present rate, our children and our children’s children will face a variety of devastating environmental, humanitarian and economic catastrophes, which will rock their world and render it unrecognizable. What can we do for them now so that this doesn’t happen? How can we lower carbon emissions so that these potential catastrophes, which we have propelled willy-‐ nilly into forward motion, are averted? On October 25, 2011, Democratic congressman Pete Stark of California introduced the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), which eight House Democrats have signed on to co-‐sponsor. H.R. 3242 would tax carbon emissions at the first point of sale or import at a rate of $10 a ton of CO2 for the first year. This fee would continue to rise by $10/per emission ton annually, until the target goal of 20 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions is reached—estimated to be by the
year 2050. It is projected that $2.6 trillion would be generated in the first 10 years, $490 billion of which would go toward paying down the federal deficit and the remainder returned to American citizens in the form of an annual dividend from the IRS ($160 the first year, $1,170 10 years out). Under this plan, everybody wins. The environment wins because it is no longer a free and open sewer for polluters; the American citizen wins in the form of money refunded to them from the government; and the government wins in that the deficit is reduced. Nelson Mandela said, “We know what needs to be done—all that is missing is the will to do it.” Do we have the will to take our
climate back from the rapacious polluters and their greedy, collaborating cronies in Congress? When you look at your children and your children’s children, ask yourself if you have what it takes to do what needs to be done. And if you don’t . . . what will you tell the children? Anne Dillon, a volunteer with Citizens Climate Lobby, lives in Waitsfield, Vermont.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 19, 2012
Trying to teach climate change Re "Classrooms feel climate skepticism," Jan. 16 As students take advanced science courses in college or graduate school, they discover that much of what they learned earlier was overly simplified. However, younger students still need to learn the most basic facts about science. As for climate change, the most basic facts are, first, that humans emit carbon
dioxide; second, that carbon dioxide causes warming; and third, our planet is warming. These basic facts are as certain as the theory of gravity and need to be taught. The complexities can wait until later. Lauren Rafelski La Jolla
JANUARY 15, 2012
Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby
Climate deniers hit new low with vicious attacks on scientists The climate deniers are kicking puppies now. That was my reaction when I heard that Katharine Hayhoe was being deluged with hate mail after stories surfaced that she had written a chapter on climate change for Newt Gingrich's upcoming book, a chapter quickly dropped when conservative commentators began making a big fuss about it. Similar attacks have been leveled against MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel following his speech at a forum for Republicans concerned about climate change. The "frenzy of hate" he's received include threats to his wife. Anyone who has ever listened to Hayhoe would be as sickened as I was over the vitriolic attacks she has endured in the past week. Being both a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, Hayhoe speaks to faith communities, explaining the science of climate change in easy-to-understand language and also offering the spiritual perspective on global warming: What would Jesus do about climate change? "My own faith is the Christian faith and in the Christian faith we are told to love our neighbors as much as
ourselves," Hayhoe recently told the Toronto Globe and Mail. "And our neighbors, especially the poorer ones, are already harmed by climate change." She's co-authored a book with her minister husband, Andrew Farley, titled A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions. On our conference call with Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers last November, she came across as one of the sweetest and likable persons you'd ever hope to meet (You can listen to that call here). The mother of a two-year-old who's married to a minister and works on climate science at Texas Tech University, Hayhoe never has a harsh word to say about anyone, especially those who disagree with her on the science of climate change. Like a true Christian, she's done an inordinate amount of cheek-turning lately. News that her chapter was being dropped from Gingrich's book came not from the candidate or his staff, but from the media seeking her reaction. She, however, has been more than gracious. I immediately thought to approach her about posting the "missing chapter" on
our Website, but she declined our offer, saying she did not want to demonize Newt or be mean-spirited. Did I mention that Hayhoe put in 100 unpaid hours on that chapter? I'm sure Gingrich wasn't aware of it. Not that it would matter. The former House Speaker has been too busy backpedaling on the climate issue in order to appease the anti-science wing of the GOP that currently calls the tune. When his presidential campaign started picking up steam in December, Mitt Romney went on the attack over Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi on climate change. Before the cock had crowed three times, Gingrich vehemently disavowed the commercial ("I tell you, I don't know the woman!"). The trouble with flip-flopping on an issue, though, is that it's hard to cover all your tracks. Four years ago, Terry Maple, who co-authored A Contract With the Earth with Gingrich in 2007, approached Hayhoe to write the opening chapter of their next book. Word got out about the collaboration in December, and before you could say "Ditto," Rush Limbaugh was blasting Gingrich for working with a non-denying climate scientist, even if she was a Christian. The disappointment of being dropped from Gingrich's book, though, is nothing compared to the onslaught of hate mail that Hayhoe has endured. Though she's too polite to repeat the words used in those messages, one gets a sense of it from this quote in the Globe and Mail: "The attacks' virulence, the hatred and the nastiness of the text have escalated exponentially. I've gotten so many hate mails in the last few weeks I can't even count them." It's been the same for MIT's Emanuel since a video -- "New
Â
Hampshire's GOP Climate Hawks" -featuring him was posted on Mother Jones' Climate Desk. His remarks were subsequently distorted by right-wing bloggers, some of whom published his email address. He described the emails in a Mother Jones interview: "What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat... I think most of my colleagues and I have received a fair bit of email here and there that you might classify as hate mail, but nothing like what I've got in the last few days." Are there new depths to plumb in this "debate"? Physical violence? I certainly hope not. I'm sure that the Republican candidates for president, even the ones who vociferously deny the existence of climate change, are appalled at the turn the discourse has taken. They should be speaking up and calling for a halt to the hate mail, to keep the conversation civil. It could start with Gingrich stepping up to condemn the attacks on Hayhoe. As his prospects for the Republican nomination rapidly wane, I hope he'll feel less compelled to appease the vocal and volatile climate deniers. I hope he'll reinstate Hayhoe's chapter in his book with a heartfelt, "My apologies. You shouldn't have been treated this way." If there's anything positive to come from the attacks on Hayhoe and Emanuel, it's the realization, hopefully, that the deniers have bottomed out. As anyone in a 12-step program can tell you, there's nowhere to go from here than up. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizens climate
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 9, 2012
Destined for climate crash Re: "A climate victory we may regret," Opinion, Dec. 28. The Journal's editorial board likens the Harper government's climate position to a game of Texas hold'em. From a risk point of view, I liken our government's position to a game of chicken, wherein two drivers bear down on each other from opposite directions, each daring the other to swerve away. If neither swerves, the result is a potentially deadly collision. I wouldn't be concerned if it was just the life of his government that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was risking. But what's at stake are the lives of future generations, all because Harper refuses to believe that global warming is caused by humans. In its latest report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a government body initiated by U.S. President Barack Obama and mandated by Congress) lists 10 key findings, the first of which states that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced."
The finding supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in its 2007 report stated that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-‐20th century "is very likely" the result of human activities. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences supports these findings, as does NASA, the American Geological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for Advancement of Science. The list goes on. And yet it's still not enough to prompt our government into action. If the fossil-‐fuel industry needs a subsidy, support for a pipeline or help with a burdensome regulation, Harper is there with a bag of money, pompoms and a regulatory workforce reduction. But when it comes to action on climate change -‐ the greatest issue facing the world -‐ Harper is an obstructionist and has been since he first darkened our political landscape. Peter Adamski, Edmonton
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 3, 2012
How to trim fossil fuel use I read the article “States slash heat aid” and shook my head in disbelief. The article told of a 92 year old Boston resident who may pay $3,000 for heating oil to heat her “drafty trailer” this winter. The part that troubles me is that taxpayer money is going towards heating a “drafty trailer.” Having a draft obviously means there are leaks and gaps in insulation (or possibly no insulation at all) for her trailer. This is taxpayer aid literally going out the window. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against helping those who need it but shouldn’t we be looking at efficiency? Some electric and gas companies give rebates for (or even offer free) energy audits that point out problem areas in your home that may be wasting energy. Spending a few hundred on insulation, caulk, and weather-‐ stripping would be a onetime cost and would drop future heating bills drastically (much to the dismay of oil companies), save thousands of taxpayer dollars, give low-‐income
families some much needed comfort from the elements, and begin to reduce climate-‐change-‐ causing greenhouse gases. Why not look beyond efficiency and begin moving away from fossil fuels? With the knowledge that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, we should be doing all we can to wean ourselves from them right now. There is currently legislation in the House of Representatives that puts a price on fossil fuels and returns revenue back to citizens so they can use this money for projects such as weatherizing. H.R. 3242 the “Save Our Climate Act” is a market based approach to addressing the climate crisis and would send a signal to the market that we should be investing in clean, renewable energies. This is a common sense solution to address a very serious problem. Jon Clark Conewago Township
DEC. 29, 2011
Green Chamber says no to Keystone, dirty fuels By John H. Reaves & Ryan Ginard TransCanada has proposed the 1,702-‐mile, $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline (“KXL”), designed to carry an additional 830,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil from Canada to refineries near the Gulf. KXL has spawned national controversy and protests. The fate of KXL lies in the hands of the State Department and President Obama, who campaigned to combat climate change. In November, the president said he would delay any decision until 2013. Congress recently tied a payroll tax extension to a 60-‐day presidential decision on KXL or face an automatic permit grant. After carefully evaluating pros and cons, the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce urges our government to reject misleading arguments that we would be safer and better off economically pursuing risky unconventional sources of fossil fuels. Instead, we should boost clean energy. The chamber supports business practices that are sustainable and consistent with long-‐term environmental protection and also enable businesses to participate in the
rapidly growing green economy. It would be irresponsible to invest in infrastructure that hastens destruction of the environment and dependence on extra-‐dirty fuels. Our nation’s foremost climatologist, James Hansen, says if KXL is built and Canadian tar sands are developed, carbon dioxide could rise to 600 parts per million (since humanity began, only exceeded 290 after Industrial Revolution; “safe” is below 350; currently about 390). He says the “game” (stopping the worst of climate change) would be “over,” leaving dire challenges to our children and planet. Extracting and refining tar sands is so fuel-‐intensive that the EPA estimates an increase of 1.15 billion tons of greenhouse gases over KXL’s 50-‐year life span. Processing requires grinding down the surface, often over 50 feet, to get at bitumen seams, then consuming 400 million gallons of water a day to produce petroleum slurry. Ninety percent of the resulting polluted water is dumped into toxic tailing ponds that already cover 65 square miles. The environmental destruction is inconceivable. The Alberta tar sands set
for extraction are found under forests and wetlands similar in size to Florida. KXL would traverse our heartland over the Ogallala aquifer that serves farms and 2 million people. The two existing tar sands oil pipelines already have bad records, including an 830,000-‐ gallon spill into the Kalamazoo River last year. Proponents of KXL urge we jump at private investment and jobs. The State Department says projected jobs are around 6,000, not 20,000. Even a large number would not justify the huge environmental cost. They also claim getting oil from Canada strengthens national security. Yet retired four-‐star generals and admirals concluded in a Rockefeller Foundation study that climate change, if not addressed, is the greatest threat to national security. Furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports we export more petroleum products than we import. Since proponents argue KXL imports would make us more secure, wouldn’t exporting less be a better option? Moreover, even if the U.S. permits KXL, most of the oil appears destined for other countries. The New York Times reported six companies have already contracted for three-‐quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the one American company, Valero, is reportedly geared toward export. Meanwhile, China has invested billions in Canada’s tar sands projects. There is currently no way to deliver oil to the Pacific, and disputes with environmentalists and indigenous communities threaten to derail any proposed pipeline.
The chamber understands the need to improve jobs and the national economy. We want America to become the engine of the global economy again. But KXL is not the answer. Put a price on carbon, such as with Rep. Pete Stark’s Save Our Climate Act, and watch a landslide of capital move to renewables. Add long-‐term regulatory direction and certainty. Increase utilities’ use of renewable energy nationwide. Allow anyone to sell excess generated power to utilities at a reasonable profit over a long term. Provide low-‐interest funding options for solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects and require use of American products to the fullest extent practical. Do the same for energy efficiency projects. Streamline processing for similar types of renewable projects. Continue subsidies to fledging – and promising – clean industries. All these would help spur jobs and retrain many of the unemployed. We face a great moral challenge: whether to lock ourselves into possibly catastrophic climate change or stop using dirtier unconventional fossil fuels. The chamber urges: 1) the U.S. reject KXL, 2) press all nations to leave tar sands in the earth, and 3) create clean energy jobs by pricing carbon and adding regulatory direction. Reaves, a San Diego-based business and environmental lawyer, is director of policy for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce and co-founder of Ecovolve Partners. Ginard is the advocacy and government relations manager for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce.
DECEMBER 29, 2011
Reject pipeline to protect our environmental future By Madeleine Para and Peter Anderson As we looked fondly upon our children happily unwrapping presents this holiday season, the time arrived, at long last, to recognize a chilling fact. We with gray hairs will be dead when the worst toll from global warming falls due, but our young innocents -‐ the very best of what we are and what we leave behind -‐ will remain to reap the whirlwind. America has so much to be proud of when faced with an imminent crisis, as our grandparents bravely did during World War II. But, truth be told, we have not shown the same resolve in the face of this gathering storm. Most have heard the sobering statistics about the future threat from climate change: 97% of climate scientists agree that by the end of this century unchecked carbon emissions will likely result in 30-‐foot sea level rises, massive "dust bowl" droughts and increasingly frequent and extreme weather events. We are already experiencing temperature increases, melting glaciers and
unprecedented incidents of crazy weather. Do you want to make the most important New Year's resolution of your life? Decide to become a climate activist. Averting the worst of global warming demands that we stop burning coal, oil and natural gas and replace them with massive efficiency gains and renewable energy. The battle rages today over whether to commit enormous investments in fragile places such as the arboreal forests in Alberta, Canada, where Big Oil wants to extract the uniquely dirty tar sands oil and pipe it to Texas, where most of it will be refined and shipped abroad. Proponents of this $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline have ignored the impact that developing tar sands oil would have on the climate, but National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist James Hansen has stated it would be "game over for the climate." Pipeline proponents claim the pipeline would be good for the economy by creating many jobs. However, the only independent study of the pipeline's impact on jobs, by Cornell University's Global Labor
Institute, concluded the pipeline "will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates." In response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt converted the automobile industry to wartime production by making it illegal to sell new cars. In 2012, facing the impending threat of climate disasters, President Barack Obama should oppose committing billions to any more extreme fossil fuel exploitation, including the tar sands pipeline that he has the power to deny, and promote the development of renewable energy. If those billions slated for a climate-‐
killing pipeline were redirected into wind and solar power, 35,000 jobs could be created. If we pull together like we did in World War II, we can convert our economy to new sources of energy and emerge stronger than ever. Act today as if the viability of the world your children will inhabit depends upon it, because it does. Urge the president to reject the tar sands pipeline. Madeleine Para is a climate activist in Madison who heads the Wisconsin chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. Peter Anderson is a recycling consultant headquartered in Madison.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 28, 2011
No to Keystone pipeline When Dan Memmott wrote "Approve Keystone Pipeline" (Readers' Forum, Dec. 21), he clearly wasn't considering the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels. He ignored the recommendations of the National Academy of Science and 31 other national science agencies that have addressed the issue for their countries. These groups warn that continued burning of fossil fuels will cause additional warming of the planet, leading to extreme weather events. We are seeing the consequences of a mere 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature elevation — such as 12 weather disasters causing over $1 billion this year, the most ever in the
U.S., and 13 of the warmest years in human history in the past 15 years. I completely agree with Memmott that creating 20,000 jobs would be valuable. However, I'm convinced we would be better served to use the $7 billion he mentioned to develop renewable sources of energy and train the people for jobs in that field. This would not only create permanent jobs, but also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and reduce our contribution to climate-‐changing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Bill Barron Salt Lake City
DECEMBER 27, 2011
LETTERS
Factor pollution into costs of energy storage ‘‘NSTAR TO test A123’s storage cell’’ (Business, Dec. 19) straightforwardly reports on the company’s plans to test A123’s grid-‐ scale storage systems. However, an industry researcher’s statement that “the lack of cheap energy storage is what is continuing the natural gas and coal paradigm’’ is a significant overstatement. Our continued dependence on natural gas and coal continues because these fuels are not priced to account for the costs their use imposes on society. These costs include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; aquifer contamination and geological destabilization from hydraulic fracturing; and environmental
degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution. If these costs were included in the prices for natural gas and coal, the economics would shift in favor of conservation; storage, solar, and fuel cells; wind; geothermal; and biofuels. As a result, investors would rush to fund the innovation needed to bring down the cost of energy storage and other technologies. We would see in hindsight that the implicit subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels were what perpetuated our dependence on them, not the costs of the alternatives. Gary Rucinski Founder Boston chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby
DECEMBER 27, 2011
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
Battling climate change By REX SPRINGSTON Richmond Times Dispatch Forget soccer mom. Meet enviro mom. Elli Sparks, mother of two, is walking the walk for the environment and against climate change. To limit energy use linked to global warming, Sparks tends a garden and raises hens in an "itty, bitty city henhouse" behind her home in Woodland Heights in South Richmond. Sparks works at home as a fundraiser for nonprofits, which means less driving. She bikes. She uses a clothesline, not a dryer. She keeps her thermostat low. "We have the kids wear sweaters instead of using heat," said Sparks, a 5-‐ foot, dark-‐haired ball of energy. Her husband, Rob Staropoli, 42, is on board environmentally. Working at home as a cabinetmaker, he uses special glues and finishes that give off little or no pollution. Sparks, 45, a Baltimore native who was raised a Lutheran, now practices a nondenominational form of worship that drives her environmentalism. Her religion, she said, involves "a very personal understanding of my spiritual relationship with the creator and creation."
Credit: EVA RUSSO/TIMES-DISPATCH
Elli Sparks shows off one of her hens in her backyard in South Richmond. Sparks leads the Richmond chapter of a group concerned about climate change.
She would like that creation to stay intact. And that's where her battle against climate change comes in.
Sparks spent five years tending to her son, Peter, now 10, who was born with a heart defect. Surgery finally healed Peter, and Sparks, who had put her passion for environmentalism aside during Peter's period of ill health, began to look into the issues about two years ago. In August 2010, she pulled from a library shelf a book on climate change — "Eaarth" by nationally known environmentalist Bill McKibben. "I sat down and read that book, and I wept the entire time. I cried as I was reading about climate change and the impact it was having on people, on animals, on plants, on our planet," she recalled. "It was just overwhelming. ... I would look at my two beautiful children and think, 'What kind of future do you have?' " The vast majority of climate scientists say the planet is warming, and the evidence is strong that humankind is playing a major role by burning fuels such as coal and oil that release heat-‐trapping gases. Scientists say climate change is raising sea levels, threatening low-‐lying areas; endangering wildlife habitats; and posing potential problems for the Chesapeake Bay, among other ills. Warnings about warming are coming from scientific organization around the globe, including the venerable National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. Still, some people believe climate change is a myth. Sparks said she has empathy for those in "denial mode." "It's a natural human response to something that's overwhelming. ... To look it seriously and honestly in the face, it's scary, and it's hard to imagine how we are going to pull together and solve this."
In March, Sparks founded the Richmond-‐area chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby, a San Diego-‐based group that encourages personal and political action to fight global warming. By setting examples and contacting lawmakers, Sparks said, "we want to create the political will for a sustainable climate." Richmond's fledgling climate group has about 15 members. They include Richard Taranto of Richmond, a retired Navy commander who worked in the service as an oceanographer and meteorologist. Sparks, he said, "is basically a very concerned citizen. ... She's a very caring person. If more people could live and work and communicate as she does, I think our community and our country and our world would be a lot better place to live." Sparks and Staropoli live in a sky-‐ blue, two-‐story frame house on a large lot with six hens, two Muscovy ducks, a dog and the two children. (The other is Sophia, 13.) They home-‐school their children. The ducks followed Sparks as she showed off her backyard garden and menagerie the other day. "They're coming to see what's going on." Some environmentalists brandish slogans and banners. Sparks tries friendly persuasion, often bringing homemade bread and sodas to people who may not share her views. "I've learned in my life that it is important to come from a place of love, not from a place of fear." After all, Sparks said, "I'm just a little old mom in Woodland Heights."
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 22, 2011
Hastening our demise Re: "The return of Gov. Moonbeam," Editorial, Dec. 18: Gov. Jerry Brown may not be making great strides solving California's economic issues, but calling his climate-‐change leadership "the lowest point to date" is irresponsible. Climate change is the most serious issue facing the planet, yet because of U.S. short-‐term thinking driven by politics of sound bites, we are only hastening our demise. We are in a serious economic crisis exacerbated by extreme climate events. The year 2011 set a record with 12 extreme weather events of more than $1 billion in damage. What effect will this have on property insurance rates? The economic damage to farmland, crops and cattle alone has been devastating and will likely continue. Yet our policies do little to
lessen the impacts of our human activities. Leading us in the right direction is Rep. Pete Stark's H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that taxes carbon-‐based fuels, returning most of the revenue to consumers with a portion directed towards deficit reduction. I urge support for this bill, which is straightforward and found on the Web. Meanwhile, the reference to "evidence" of the debunked "Climategate" is old news and fully exonerated. See www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci ence_and_impacts/global_warming_contr arians/debunking-‐misinformation-‐stolen-‐ emails-‐climategate.html . Peg Mitchell San Marcos
READERS WRITE, DEC. 18, 2011
CLIMATE ACT
A start toward reduced carbon emissions We should all breathe a sigh of relief (“Climate deal doesn’t make things worse — or better,” ajc.com, Dec. 11). The climate talks in Durban didn’t solve global warming, and there is a lot left to do — but an accord is in place. After the hottest decade in history, any progress is welcome. The politicians cannot solve the greatest problems we face, but if they
support the Save Our Climate Act and put a reasonable price on emitting carbon, they can hand us the tools for the United States to put our energy and ingenuity to work to lead the world to reducing our emissions by 2015 (as we must). Our greatest days are before us — if only we will seize them. — Dr. Timothy S. Hanes, Atlanta
CEDAR RAPIDS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011
We can’t wait until 2020 to cut emissions While it is encouraging that a path forward now exists for an international agreement on climate change, the deal completed Dec. 11 in Durban, South Africa, will allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue rising until 2020. By that time, we may well exceed the tipping point on global warming. Extending the Kyoto Protocol to 2017, implementing a legally binding pact to limit greenhouse gases by 2020 and including China and India and especially the United States in the pact are some positive breakthroughs that we should celebrate. But it’s clear from what the science is telling us and the increasing number of extreme weather events that we can’t wait until 2020 to start cutting fossil fuel emissions. A bill introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., the Save
Our Climate Act of 2011 (H.R. 3242), places a steadily rising tax on carbon-‐ based fuels and returns revenue to consumers on a per-‐capita basis. Border adjustments on imports from nations that don’t have a similar pricing mechanism provide a strong incentive for other nations to implement their own carbon tax. In the face of global crisis, the world waits for U.S. leadership. We must lay aside partisan bickering and develop a national policy of sustainable energy use. H.R. 3242 is a workable plan. It is revenue neutral and encourages the free market to move into alternative energy development. I urge Rep. David Loebsack to become a co-‐sponsor. Elisabeth Robbins Marion
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011
What is our gov't waiting for? Put a price on carbon and let market decide winners, losers Re Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto — CJ, Dec. 13: The International Energy Agency’s recently released 2011 World Energy Outlook warns if our fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will “lose forever” the chance to avoid dangerous climate change. The NOAA’s Climate Extreme Index for 2011 reveals the U.S. has seen the most severe precipitation extremes on record this year. This follows news that a record number of billion-‐dollar weather disasters have occurred in North America in 2011. At the American Geophysical Union meeting last week, Russian scientists reported that “fountains” of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are being released from the melting Siberian permafrost “on a scale never seen before.” It is to this backdrop that the Harper government has moved to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international climate change treaty. If only this meant that instead of messing around with half-‐hearted, piecemeal
attempts to address the most urgent issue of our time our federal government was serious about tackling it head on. A truly conservative approach to this daunting yet conquerable challenge would be to remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, put a price on carbon pollution, and allow the free market to decide the winners and losers. Carbon fee and dividend is a market-‐ based climate change solution that is simple and transparent and sends a clear message to business about the move to clean energy. Individual Canadians, not corporations or the government, receive the money collected to help cushion them from the short-‐term costs of the shift to a green economy. Best of all, our children and grandchildren receive the gift of a stable climate, cleaner air and water, and an economy that runs on sustainable sources of energy. What is our government waiting for? Christine Penner Polle Red Lake
READERS WRITE, DEC. 16, 2011
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Proposed legislation needs to be passed now Regarding “Climate deal avoids bottom line” (News, Dec. 12), I find myself wondering what it’s going to take for us to get our act together and move aggressively toward a renewable energy economy. The logjam in Durban underscores the importance of developed countries (such as the U.S.) leading the way with new technology and clean energy. This will accelerate when we have a realistic pricing model that takes
into account environmental and public health impacts of burning fossil fuels. Proposed legislation, HR 3242, sends clear price signals to the market that will accelerate the development of alternatives without putting undue stress on citizens. We need to pass this legislation now — and move back into a position of leadership on global issues like climate change and renewable energy. — Brandon Sutton, Atlanta
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011
Climate progress It was encouraging to see the Tribune's report on the outcome of the climate talks in Durban, South Africa: a path forward to a worldwide legal agreement to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. At long last, the biggest and fastest-‐growing greenhouse gas emitters -‐ -‐ China, the U.S. and India-‐-‐ have come to grips with the most urgent and contentious issue facing humanity. Unprecedented bouts of budget-‐ busting extreme weather in recent years have given us a taste of what to expect if we fail to follow through. But while the agreement is encouraging, we can ill afford to wait until 2020 to start bringing down our fossil fuel emissions. We must act now to meet our responsibility to future generations. The simplest, most transparent and most fiscally conservative policy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is a
revenue-‐neutral carbon tax. Impose a fee on carbon-‐based fuels at the wellhead or mine exit, based on carbon content, and rebate the proceeds back to American families. This would unleash the free market to determine the most cost-‐ effective methods to cut carbon emissions, whether through efficiency, renewables, carbon capture, or whatever else American ingenuity can produce. Legislation based on this approach, the Save Our Climate Act, has been introduced in the U.S. House. Given the urgency of the situation, our congressional delegation should give this bill serious consideration. It's time for the politicians to stop posturing and act in the best interests of America and the world. -- Rick Knight, Ken O'Hare, Perry Recker and Jack Baker, Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicagoland Chapter
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011
U.S. should take the lead on carbon curbs The Dec. 12 front-‐page article “Outcome of climate talks falls to Asia” highlighted the importance of addressing carbon emissions in China and India, which are the No. 1 and No. 3 carbon emitters, respectively. While cutting emissions in these countries is critical, the United States (No. 2 emitter) is a much worse offender per capita and must pass emissions legislation as soon as possible.
A bill sitting in Congress now, the Save Our Climate Act, would put a tax on carbon and use the revenue to help consumers pay for higher energy costs and pay down the deficit. Passing such legislation would not only mitigate climate change but also would encourage other big emitters like China and India to follow our lead. Erica Flock, Reston The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 14, 2011
Dismount dead horse Re “No climate deal” (Opinion, Dec. 2): Given the apparent failure of United Nations climate talks in Durban, South Africa, we Americans have a choice to make regarding attempts to coordinate a global effort to address climate change. We can exhaust ourselves arguing about who is to blame, or we can demonstrate leadership by shifting to renewable energy sources. Others will certainly follow. We have long heard that renewables aren’t economically competitive with carbon-‐based fossil fuels. That is no longer the case. Renewable energy’s costs have steadily dropped and will continue to drop the more they are adopted. If not yet competitive, they will be very soon.
We could embrace our renewable energy future by enacting smart, forward-‐looking policies. We could shift subsidies from dirty energy to clean energy. We could put a fee on carbon with proceeds going to every American household, as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act, recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Lakota have a saying: If you find yourself riding a dead horse, it’s best to dismount. How long before we switch and ride abundant clean energy sources instead of the scarce, dirty and increasingly expensive energy sources that we currently ride? Ben Mates Salt Lake City
Calgary Beacon Calgary Independent online local news, Dec. 13, 2011
Shift to clean energy is where the puck is heading Call for carbon pricing system, proceeds used to develop sustainable economy By Cheryl McNamara Earlier this month, the world convened once again to nail down a post-‐Kyoto commitment on climate change. And once again the climate talks, held in Durban, South Africa, generated a cacophony of voices and more finger pointing that inevitably led to disappointment on one hand and relief on the other that no deal has been reached yet to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. At the crux of this struggle between committing to science-‐based reduction targets and continuing business as usual is the tension between pushing for paradigm change and holding fast to the status quo. Change tends to scare people. People don’t like to see the world in which they grew up – its views and expectations – shift abruptly. But in order to prevent global temperatures from reaching dangerous levels – which will also trigger abrupt societal changes as a result of rising sea levels, compromised agriculture and so on –
we are asked to collectively and quickly shift our economies and behaviours. Is it any wonder that among those contributing to the climate change conversation is a small but highly vocal group who question the science, despite the robust research, declaring global warming to be a lie, dreamt up by devious liberals to take over the world? More conservative voices, however, are now joining the climate action chorus, including religious, military and business leaders. The Pope, in particular, has been a vocal climate action proponent, calling on negotiators in Durban “to craft a responsible and credible deal to cut greenhouse gases that takes into account the needs of the poor.” Recently Canadian representatives of 30 faith communities and organizations issued a statement calling for global action on climate change and equating climate action with public well-‐being. The U.S. military is also taking a lead, foreseeing security threats that will come with a warming world and
continued dependency on oil from hostile countries. Recognizing that clean energy development is critical to national security, the U.S. Department of Defence plans to annually spend $10 billion on renewable energy for military application by 2030. Just as the military gave civil society the Internet and GPS, so too will it help fast track innovations and market development of renewable energy technologies. The business community too sees the writing on the wall. According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, “switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities.” To facilitate renewable energy development, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is calling for “a broad-‐based carbon pricing scheme that is transparent and predictable.” Such a mechanism will help change behaviours, and spur innovation and the development of cleaner energy sources, products and services, according to the CCCE. Rather than heed their advice, Foreign Minister John Baird declared that Canada will never adopt a carbon tax. Never is a long time, particularly when we are running out of it. In its recently released World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns countries of “locking into an insecure, inefficient and high-‐carbon energy system.”
Even Ed Stelmach, Alberta’s former Premier, recognized the danger of becoming too reliant on its resources, warning that Albertans could find themselves “watching the global economic game from the sidelines – because our resource wealth made us too comfortable, and we lost the drive to achieve and perform at a critical moment.” The critical moment is now. Wayne Gretsky famously said that the secret to his success was skating to where the puck was heading, not to where it was. With mounting calls to reduce greenhouse gases, diminishing supply from conventional oil wells, and innovation in clean energy technology, it’s clear where the puck is heading. Canada has a choice. Either lock into an insecure high-‐carbon system, or legislate a mechanism that sends a clear market signal to nourish an industry poised to surge, bring new life back to our ailing manufacturing sector, create an abundance of quality jobs, and create healthier communities. Change is difficult. But not when it generates great benefits. By putting a price on carbon that increases annually and giving the proceeds back to citizens to stimulate the economy we can develop a sustainable society for our kids and grandkids. Isn’t that what true conservatism is all about? Cheryl McNamara is the Communications Officer for the Organization Citizens Climate Lobby
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 9, 2011
Tax use of fossil fuels I appreciate former Sen. Bob Bennett for his recent appeal to good sense ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). What would really make sense would be to take a whole-‐ systems, long-‐term view of the effects of burning fossil fuels to provide our energy. Our current combustion of fuels brings with it the cumulative costs of treating respiratory and other diseases, waging war to secure energy resources, smog, acid rain, and species extinction — not to mention the astronomical costs of climate disasters.
If even a portion of these is taken into account, then it most definitely makes sense to institute policies to promote a shift to clean, renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. A fee on carbon combined with a dividend of 100 percent of the revenues back to households (as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act — HR3242) would be a good start in having real costs reflected in our energy equation. It makes a lot of sense to drive our economy to more livable and resilient outcomes. Ben J. Mates Salt Lake City
COMPASS: Other points of view, DEC. 8, 2011
A carbon fee could make a big difference By JIM THRALL When it comes to climate change, we're literally skating on thin ice here in the north, and unless we start reducing emissions of heat-‐trapping gases within five years, catastrophic consequences will be unavoidable. That was the warning from the International Energy Agency prior to the opening of the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa. It's a warning that seems to fall on deaf ears among politicians in America. As a result, U.S. negotiators arrived empty-‐handed at this year's conference, with no credible plan of action to reduce the threat of climate change. This isn't great news. Here in Alaska, the changes taking place in our climate are hard to miss. Already, feedback loops are beginning to hasten the process. Arctic waters, heating up faster than expected, decrease ice cover and reduce reflection of solar radiation to outer space, further increasing heat absorption. Thawing permafrost releases massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse gases we release by burning fossil fuels. These tipping points were predicted by climate scientists years ago. Yet, even as they occur, the coal and oil industries continue to cast doubt on the serious nature of the problem -‐-‐ just as the tobacco industry cast doubt on the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
If this weren't bad enough, another serious tipping point approaches as the ocean absorbs more, and more CO2 slowly becoming more acidic. As pH drops in the waters of Kachemak Bay, eventually we'll reach the point where crabs cannot easily maintain their exoskeletons. Pterpods, a major food for salmon, will begin to disappear. It isn't clear how quickly this will happen, but it is beyond foolish to hope that without action on our part it will not occur. Fortunately there is action we can take to avoid the worst-‐case scenario that looms in our future: Put a fee on carbon. Economists agree that the best way to change harmful behavior is by increasing the cost. First, a fee on carbon will recognize the true cost of our overuse of this energy source (the many external environmental and social costs that have long gone unaccounted for). Second, this fee will encourage massive investment in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency, providing jobs to thousands of people, stimulating our moribund economy and putting us back in the competition for dominance of the world's energy sector, a race we are currently ceding to China and Germany. Finally, by rebating most of the fee to American households, the effect of the temporary increase in energy prices will be largely mitigated. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), recently introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., does exactly what is described above. It also uses part of the fee to reduce the deficit, addressing
another critical issue that Congress is currently struggling with, albeit with limited success. Given the real threats we face if CO2 emissions are not controlled -‐-‐ floods, droughts, food shortages, more severe storms, rising sea levels, decreased ocean productivity -‐-‐ we need to demand that Congress act. As members of the Senate Oceans Caucus Committee Sens. Murkowski and Begich have important roles to play in addressing ocean acidification. In addition, Sen. Murkowski is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Begich sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Support of the
Save Our Climate Act or other legislation to place a fee on carbon is the best way to address what is becoming a grave threat to Alaska's all important marine resources. If you like to catch, eat or sell seafood or live a subsistence lifestyle, demand that they step up to the plate. Oh, and by the way, this doesn't mean Alaska won't continue to produce oil and gas for the domestic market. In fact, it is likely that one thing that a fee on carbon will do is encourage more production of natural gas. Jim Thrall is the Anchorage leader of Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 6, 2011
Initiate carbon tax I applaud former Sen. Bob Bennett for his sensible article on approaching climate change ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). Yes, reducing our carbon footprint is both possible and it makes good economic sense. Bennett also points out that developing nations continue to increase their greenhouse gases even as the U.S. emissions have decreased. How can the U.S., which has created more of the excess greenhouse gases than any other nation, influence these nations to reduce their use of carbon dioxide-‐ producing fuels? The U.S. should build on the success that Bennett notes by putting
a price on carbon and returning the proceeds to the American people. Such a proposal is the basis of the Save our Climate Act (HR3242), which was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would further stimulate our move to energy efficiency and use of renewable energy and provide a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. As Bennett affirms, cap and trade has not worked. Let's try a new legislative approach that makes sense. David S. Folland Sandy
Guest blog posted on December 5, 2011
Saving N.E. seasons (and Earth’s climate) starts in Durban By Gary Rucinski, Founder, Citizens Climate Lobby Boston Chapter I was born in New Jersey but, when it comes to the weather, I am New England Yankee through and through. After my family moved to Massachusetts, my grandfather taught me how to garden. My childhood was defined by the cycle of planting in spring, watering and weeding in summer, and harvesting in fall. I remember the sweetness of homegrown strawberries, the snap of fresh beans, and the taste of my grandmother’s green tomato relish made with the last pickings from the vine. To this day, I feel the appreciation that gardening instilled in me for the New England seasons. Sadly, we no longer have the seasons I grew up with. As scientists predicted, our climate has changed. Seasons in New England today are more like those of northern New Jersey in the early sixties. By late this century, if we don’t act, New England seasons will be like those of present day South Carolina. Should we live so long, my wife will rejoice at this change, but I will mourn the loss of the seasons of my childhood.
If the New England seasons were the only potential loss due to climate change, there might be little urgency to act. But this year, the U.S. experienced the bitter taste of what climate change will bring. We’ve seen devastating fires in drought-stricken Texas; tornadoes and a freak October snowstorm that dumped 30” of snow in western Massachusetts; and massive floods along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Extreme weather events overall caused $50B in damages in 2011. As the reality of climate change has been sinking in, the case advanced by climate change deniers has been collapsing. Richard Mueller, a former skeptic, announced results confirming the scientific consensus on global
warming. Simultaneously, a clear winner was also emerging as the best policy option for addressing climate change. The consensus policy approach is to put a tax on the carbon in fossil fuels. Called a carbon tax, it is viewed in countries around the globe and by economists across the ideological spectrum as the most effective way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels that cause climate change. This year Australia passed a carbon tax that will raise the price of energy but cut income taxes by an equivalent amount. British Columbia has been operating with a similar tax for four years. South Africa’s National Treasury concluded, “Carbon taxes afford firms the flexibility to undertake emissions reductions according to their specific processes and provide the long-term price certainty which is essential for investment decisions.” In the U.S., Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins submitted the CLEAR Act in the last Congress. This act proposed auctioning carbon shares that gradually increase in price. Seventy five percent of auction proceeds would have been returned directly to households. In October, Representative Pete Stark and eight cosponsors submitted theSave Our Climate Act. This bill would put a gradually increasing tax on carbon. It would return most proceeds to households and use a portion to reduce the national debt.
It may seem nonsensical to tax carbon on the one hand and refund nearly the same amount to consumers. We have seen, however, that Americans change their habits when energy gets more expensive. Also, private investment in the clean tech and alternative energy sectors increases when costs for energy rise. The guarantee of a gradually increasing carbon tax will give consumers and businesses the predictability they need to justify the investments that will jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy. Refunds will allow all Americans to purchase the energy they need during the transition. With no doubt remaining on the science, the daily news reminding us of damages to come, and an emerging global consensus on the most effective policy proposal, now is the time to act. The current international conference on climate change, COP17, in Durban, South Africa, presents an opportunity to do so. The Obama Administration should go to COP17 and signal its support for a U.S. carbon tax, then come home and work to pass one in the current Congress. Doing so will help preserve more than just the New England seasons I have come to love. For more information on Citizens Climate Lobby, go to www.citizensclimatelobby.org.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011 CLIMATE CHANGE
Seattle of the Midwest Thank you for the Nov. 26 front-‐ page article on Milwaukee's six-‐ decade wet streak. I read a lot about climate change, but I did not realize global warming had already led us into "local wetting." It's strange to think of Milwaukee becoming the Seattle of the Great Lakes. What really worries me is how we will grow enough food for the world's 7 billion-‐plus people with places like here getting more rain but others getting less or at the wrong times. The drought in Texas this summer was historic, and last year Russia halted grain exports due to dry weather. Pakistan and Australia have had massive flooding recently. With carbon emissions rising faster than scientists' worst-‐case scenarios, I fear
we are on track to see millions of people suffering from natural disasters, famine and the civil chaos they lead to. It does not have be this way. A low but rising tax on carbon, fully refunded to each American, would efficiently wean our economy off fossil fuels. Renewable energy is labor intensive, so a "fee and dividend" plan like this would create more jobs than it cost. Compared to floods, food shortages and resource wars, it is a bargain. And if we get on it soon enough, we may even preserve the character-‐building winters we in Milwaukee so love to complain about. Michael Arney Wauwatosa
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011
Climate change A bouquet to the U-‐T for publishing Marshall Saunders’ very informative article about climate change (“Climate debate in search of solutions,” Opinion, Nov. 25) and the front-‐page story Nov. 21 on the impacts of climate change in California. A brick to the U-‐T for publishing the letter to the editor (Nov. 28) regarding CO2 and the fact that it is required for life. Of course CO2 is required for life. In biology, one finds that many things
required in small quantities can be poisonous in large doses. While I realize we all have the right to our opinion in this country, I look for a challenging and intellectually engaging debate when I read the letters to the editor. The U-‐T receives many letters and must make a choice about what to print. With letters like this, I’m wondering if I might soon find one emphatically stating the world is flat. – Judy Berlfein, Encinitas
EDITORIAL, NOV. 28, 2011
Climate crisis
U.S. culpable for warming planet Of all the failures of American government over the past decade, the one that is likely to haunt future generations most is the failure to act decisively to lessen the effects of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Former President George W. Bush not only failed to act to limit the increasing production of CO2 but vehemently denied U.S. culpability in the rising global temperatures. His ignorance has been compounded by the ineffective, even lukewarm, efforts of the Barack Obama administration and the continued denial and refusal of Congress to acknowledge the looming crisis. President Obama’s proposed caps on carbon emissions by American industry went nowhere, and now it seems, in the face of their intransigence, he has given up trying to persuade legislators to do anything. The United States, more than any nation on Earth, will be held accountable, and should be, for what scientists now say are the inescapable consequences of putting fossil-‐fuel industry interests above the interests of the planet’s inhabitants. The U.S. and China are the primary contributors. While emerging nations India and China are not held to the goals of the Kyoto agreement of 1997, the United States has simply failed to use the technology available to reduce emissions. Europe, Russia and Japan, meanwhile, have nearly met the goals set
by the pact. The U.S. Senate never ratified it. Scientists say now, after the record-‐ setting temperature increases of 2010 when the global carbon dioxide emissions increased by the highest one-‐year amount ever, we may have gone beyond the point when we can help ourselves. And the United States is leading the way to global catastrophe. The growth in warming has accelerated every decade, well beyond what scientists predicted two decades ago. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since 1990 the heat-‐trapping force from all the major greenhouse gases has increased by 29 percent. We have, perhaps, already reached the “tipping point,” when the melting of the Earth’s ice sheets is irreversible. If that is true, sea levels will rise by several feet, inundating coastal nations, many of them in some of the world’s poorest places. Refugees from those places will escape to higher-‐ground nations, creating societal problems the world has not yet seen. Extreme weather events are already beginning and will bring severe floods, droughts and storms. World leaders will meet this week in South Africa to once again try to formulate plans to cut emissions and lessen the coming crisis. The United States has an obligation to, at least, admit it has a role to play.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 26, 2011
Climate change debate needs to continue In response to “Studies show climate change’s impact on CA” (SignOnSanDiego.com, Nov. 20): It’s no surprise that these recent studies have found increasing climate change impacts on California. We have been hearing for years that our snow will melt earlier and cause flooding, our crops will be more stressed and we will see more extreme fires and droughts. It was, however, particularly disappointing to see the use of an inflammatory and inaccurate quote from James Taylor of the Heartland Institute in an attempt to “show the other side.” The Heartland Institute is famous for defending tobacco companies and being funded by oil companies. Doesn’t this seem like a poor choice for an informed opinion? California faces big challenges with climate change, the largest of which weren’t discussed in this article. We deserve to have a constant informed discussion about how to deal with them rather than bickering from private interest groups like the Heartland Institute. Thanks for covering this important issue, but please do a better job with your sources. – Cameron Coates, La Jolla Climate change is not “mad science.” Ninety-‐seven percent of climate scientists (not meteorologists, geologists or physicists) agree it’s happening and caused by man. If it’s good enough that 4 out of 5 (80 percent) dentists recommend a particular type of mouthwash, why isn’t
4.85 out of 5 (97 percent) climate scientists good enough? With Richard Muller, the vociferous climate denialist physicist funded by the Koch brothers, recently sharing results of his own two-‐year investigation finding that climate change is real, perhaps the number is creeping even higher. Are those 97 percent of climate scientists really doing the mad science, or is it the 3 percent who still deny climate change is real and man-‐made? – Daniel Richter, La Jolla With the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, California is attempting to decrease greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat and warm the planet. However, we need national action if we are to prevent climate change. Rep. Pete Stark (D-‐Calif.) has introduced House Resolution 3242, the Save Our Climate Act. This bill would put a steadily increasing fee on fossil fuels and return much of the money to the American people in the form of a dividend. By putting a predictable price on carbon, this legislation would level the playing field for alternative energy producers. Thus, venture capitalists and private entrepreneurs would compete to develop new technologies. As George W. Bush said, we are addicted to fossil fuels. There is nothing good about this addiction. Californians can adapt to a changing climate, but many parts of the world cannot. America must lead the way to a clean energy economy. Congress should pass the Save Our Climate Act. – Jean Seager, Coronado
NOV. 26, 2011
Climate debate in search of solutions By Marshall Saunders Now that climate science skeptic Richard Muller has discovered – surprise! – that global warming is real, perhaps the debate on climate change can now shift to what we’re going to do about it. Of course, the “debate” about the reality of climate change has been bogus, ginned up by the coal and oil interests looking to maintain their sky-‐high profit margins. Taking a page out of the tobacco industry’s playbook, the fossil fuel lobby hired “experts” with dubious credentials to make people think that the science on climate change was unsettled. What most of the public doesn’t know is that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the earth is warming, primarily from human influence. In other words, when it comes to climate change, our failure to reduce greenhouse gases is equivalent to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver. Of the skeptics who were out there, though, UC Berkeley physicist Muller’s harsh critique of the methods and processes used in climate studies was not easily dismissed. He conducted his own two-‐year study, partially funded by climate denier Charles M. Koch’s foundation. Despite the Koch backing, Muller confirmed the work of previous studies: It’s getting hotter on planet Earth. Other reports indicate we’re running short on time to avert the worst consequences of this warming.
A draft summary of an upcoming report by the International Protocol on Climate Change links climate change and the extreme weather – droughts, floods, fires and heat waves – besetting the U.S. and the rest of the world. These disasters will only become more frequent and severe in coming years unless we cut our output of carbon dioxide. How long will it be before these catastrophes outpace our ability to recover from them? Bad news on the lowering CO2 front, though: The U.S. Energy Department just reported that emissions jumped by the highest rate ever in 2010, and that’s in the middle of an economic recession. This increase is beyond the worst-‐case scenarios that climate scientists anticipated when calculating how quickly the Earth would heat up. What to do about it? Step one, it seems, is to put a price on carbon dioxide – the byproduct of burning fossil fuels – that will eventually wean our nation off coal, oil and gas. With a clear price signal that clean energy will be more profitable than dirty energy, massive amounts of investment money will move toward wind, solar and other renewable technologies. The faster we make this transition, the quicker we will reduce our CO2 emissions. Legislation to do this, the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), was recently introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Fremont. It places a $10 tax on each ton of CO2 a fuel will emit when burned, increasing by $10 each year until U.S. CO2 emissions
have fallen to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Because it will increase energy costs initially, Stark’s bill also returns most of the revenue from the carbon tax to individuals in the form of an annual payment. In 10 years, that annual payment is expected to be $1,170. At that time, too, Stark’s bill is expected to have paid down $490 billion of the national debt, as the legislation devotes a portion of revenue for deficit reduction. What about American businesses? Won’t they face unfair competition from foreign firms that don’t have to pay costs associated with the carbon tax? Yes, and that’s why the Save Our Climate Act calls for border adjustments, equivalent tariffs on imported goods from nations that don’t have similar carbon
pricing. These tariffs create a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. Why give money to the U.S. Treasury when they can keep that revenue in their own country? As delegates prepare to gather in South Africa later this month for a meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world looks toward Washington for some sign of a breakthrough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Giving serious consideration to Stark’s Save Our Climate Act would restore hope that humanity will come to its senses before it’s too late. Saunders is president of San Diego-based Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 28, 2011
Kudos to Huntsman on climate change I was happy to see columnist Steve Chapman's recent endorsement of Jon Huntsman as the best Republican running for president. Huntsman stands out as the only candidate who acknowledges that global warming is taking place. With carbon emissions growing faster in 2010 than even the worst case scenario outlined by climate scientists, the problem of climate change needs to be faced and addressed now. Although Republicans in Congress refuse to move ahead on climate legislation, many conservatives outside of Congress recognize that a fee on carbon emissions paid by fossil fuel companies is the best way to lower our carbon emissions. When the fee is combined with a full rebate of the revenues to the
American people, the system is revenue neutral and does not add to government bureaucracy. It also encourages entrepreneurs to find ways to meet the resulting new demand for efficiency and renewable energy. The resulting growth of the green economy will not only slow global warming but also bring new jobs and life to our economy. Legislation along these lines has been introduced in the U.S. House in the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). Climate change threatens us all, regardless of political party. Everyone should insist that politicians make solving this problem one of their highest priorities. I hope Huntsman moves up in the polls. — Madeleine Para, Madison, member, Citizens Climate Lobby
NOVEMBER 25, 2011
ENVIRONMENT
Saving the world — an article of eco-faith For some Christians, it’s not a matter of politics By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune Would Jesus have gorged himself this Thanksgiving on turkeys laced with sodium, kept the stove on all day, served imported pears or filled his garbage with plastic bags? Christian environmentalists don’t think so and, for them, it’s more a matter of faith than politics. The Earth is holy, these believers say, and God gave humanity the responsibility to protect and care for it. If we truly recognized the debt we owe to Mother Nature, we would stop overeating, overconsuming and overextending the world’s resources. “We don’t think about the ethical implications of what we eat and what we buy,” says Mormon environmental activist and Brigham Young University humanities professor George Handley. “LDS scriptures are replete with passages about the danger of ‘wasting flesh’ and exploiting nature, as well as the importance of distributing resources equitably.” And it’s not just a Mormon problem, he says. “It affects the whole developed world.” Indeed, scores of religious believers in Utah, across the country and throughout the world share Handley’s concerns, building their cases on religious texts, moral reasoning and church teachings.
"I realized global warming was happening and I needed to do something about it," said Dave Folland, a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.
Dozens of congregations are members of Utah Interfaith Power & Light, whose mission is to “seek to be faithful stewards of creation by addressing global climate change through the promotion of energy conservation and efficiency and a shift toward renewable energy.” Protecting the environment is an issue that every person — regardless of political party, religion, social standing or economic background — should care about, Handley says, but it has become entangled in politics. These religious activists hope to transcend that wrangling, he adds, and wrap the conversation in the language of stewardship. It is, he argues, a spiritual mandate. Evolving awareness While teaching for three years at Northern Arizona University in the mid-‐
1990s, Handley was in a department that merged environmental education with religious studies. For the first time, he realized that LDS theology might enhance the discussion. “Mormons don’t always think carefully enough about the church’s unique narrative about ‘the creation,’ where the world was created out of unorganized matter and not out of nothing,” Handley says. “It’s hard to reconcile creation out of nothing with what we know about evolution. Our [LDS] notion of creation is more compatible with environmental ethics, too.” In addition, LDS theology posits that the world was created spiritually before materially and that plants and animals have “living souls,” he says. “That is one of the church’s more beautiful doctrines and should be a basis for the ethical treatment of animals and the Earth.” The Utah-‐based faith’s health code, known as the Word of Wisdom, entreats Mormons to eat fruit “in [their] season,” and that “flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air ... [should] be used sparingly ... only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” LDS scriptures also say that every species should continue to “multiply and replenish” indefinitely, says Handley, author of Home Waters: A Year of Recompenses on the Provo River and an adviser to BYU’s EcoResponse club. “Mormons believe that every species and has a right to enjoy posterity.” Yet many conservative Latter-‐day Saints put environmental stewardship at odds with economic realities. “Those are false choices,” Handley says. “One of the easiest ways to ignite religion around environment is to make it about people and not just about plants and animals. What hurts the animals hurts people.” He sees optimistic signs in the LDS Church’s recent efforts to make its meetinghouses more eco-‐friendly.
“There is something very doctrinally sound when we talk about conservation of resources,” LDS Presiding Bishop H. David Burton said last year while touting a “green” stake center in Farmington that boasts solar panels, xeriscaped landscaping and designated parking for electric cars. “This is a teaching moment. This aspect of our culture has become a vital part of our DNA.” Handley hopes such eco-‐zeal becomes even more ingrained in Mormons — to the extent that the “provident living” refrain embraces environmental ethics as well. A clear connection Growing up amid Austria’s strong Catholic community, Margret Posch was a natural-‐born environmentalist. “Many churches there featured children’s drawings of other young people suffering in a drought,” Posch recalls. “There was always this [implicit] message about how our actions affected the living conditions of other human beings.” About eight years ago, Posch, with her husband and two sons, toured the United States and chose to settle in Utah because of its stunning landscapes — red-‐rock splendor, Wasatch majesty, canyon coolness, desert delights. After settling in, she was surprised to discover widespread resistance to conversations about the environment. Friends and neighbors seemed to see it as a political issue, rather than a religious or moral one, she says. They were uncomfortable even discussing the topic. She wondered if the link she saw between nature and humans was unique to Austria, but soon realized that it permeated Catholic teachings everywhere. Even the pope warned about the rising threat of global warming. Two years ago, Posch started a “Going Green Ministry” within her Draper parish, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church. She organized Taizé prayer services to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth
Day, handed out small vegetable plants to encourage gardening, discussed how to limit energy use and organized an art contest. Next month, the group will sponsor a Christmas-‐card-‐making event, using recycled materials. “I happen to be Catholic, and this is an expression of my faith ,” Posch says. “But it’s just as much about the ethical care of human beings.” That, she says, is not bound by any faith. Waking up David Folland, a retired Salt Lake City pediatrician, spent his youth in Utah and California, immersed in nature’s glories. But it wasn’t until Folland attended a lecture by a National Geographic photographer at Westminster College a few years ago that he grasped the urgency of climate change. After showing stunning shots of the arctic, photographer Paul Nicklen told the crowd that “if current trends continue, all the wildlife you see here tonight will disappear.” Folland was incensed. “I realized that global warming was happening,” he says, “and I needed to do something about it.” Folland, who says he respects spirituality but is not associated with any faith, became an overnight activist. He joined Utah Interfaith Power & Light, has written about the issue and has tried to raise awareness at every opportunity. He recently traveled with the Citizens Climate Lobby to Washington, D.C., to meet with Utah’s congressional delegation about climate change. The delegation — all Mormons — did not seem moved by any of the arguments or literature, Folland recalls. That is, until the activists mentioned the Vatican’s recent statement calling on “all people
and nations to recognize the serious and potentially reversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants … If we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.” Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians, has become known as “the Green Patriarch” because of his efforts to preserve the planet. “To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin,” the gray-‐haired patriarch said in a film about the environment. “For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation, to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air and its life — all of these are sins.” A few years ago, some Christians published The Green Bible, with verses and passages that “speak to God’s care for creation highlighted in green.” Such religious efforts on the Earth’s behalf are growing and spreading, says Susan Soleil, director of Utah Interfaith Power & Light. “Every faith has something within its holy scriptures [a mandate] about caring for God’s creation,” she says. “And every religion focuses on caring for the less fortunate ... indigenous people, the poor, the elderly, the sick, the children. We need to be kinder to the planet so it doesn’t destroy the places where they are living.” After all, the Psalmist tells us that the Earth and its fullness are the Lord’s. Jesus knew that, too.
pstack@sltrib.com
© 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 23, 2011
Huntsman believes in global warming I was happy to see Steve Chapman's piece about Jon Huntsman potentially being the best pick for the Republican presidential nomination on Sunday's editorial page ("Question: Why not Jon Huntsman? Opinion, Nov. 20). Huntsman stands out as the only Republican presidential candidate who acknowledges that global warming is taking place. With carbon emissions growing faster in 2010 than even the worst case scenario outlined by climate scientists, the problem of climate change needs to be faced and addressed as rapidly as possible. Despite the loud cries of climate change deniers, addressing climate change is a priority for many Americans. A recent survey conducted by Yale researcher Anthony Leiserowitz found that 70 percent of Americans, including 44 percent of Republicans, felt global warming should be a very high or moderate priority for the president and Congress. Although Republicans in Congress currently refuse to move ahead on climate legislation, many conservatives outside of Congress are recognizing that a fee on
carbon emissions paid by fossil fuel companies is the best way to quickly lower our carbon emissions. When the fee is combined with a full rebate of the revenues to the American people, the system is revenue neutral, does not add to government bureaucracy and encourages entrepreneurs to find ways to meet the resulting new demand for efficiency and renewable energy. The resulting growth of the green economy will not only slow global warming but also bring new jobs and life to our economy. Legislation along these lines has been introduced in the U.S. House -‐-‐ the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). The Yale study found that 65 percent of those surveyed supported a revenue neutral carbon tax that would reduce federal income taxes, help create jobs and decrease pollution. 51 percent of Republicans supported the idea. Climate change threatens us all, regardless of political party. Huntsman is smart to respect the science on global warming. I hope that he moves up in the polls. -- Madeleine Para, Madison, Wis.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 23, 2011
There’s no need to subsidize energy Thank you for “Studies gauge how climate change impacts Californians” (Nov. 21). The story included the phrase, “not everyone believes” that climate change is tied to man-‐made CO² emissions. Science and belief are distinct domains and should be treated differently. The process by which science is worked out, “peer review,” may not be perfect but it is reliable. That is why when our children were sick we were confident that antibiotics would work and when we go to the airport we are not wondering if this is one of the planes that actually flies. Among scientists, there is consensus. If you speak with any of them – locally, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; nationally, The American Academy of Science; and internationally, The
Pontifical Academy of Sciences – you will hear that we have an urgent man-‐made problem. The good news is California scientists have created a plan to transition all of our energy needs to wind, solar and geothermal within 20 years. The fastest way to get there is to put a predictable, steadily rising cost on all fossil fuels and send all the revenue back to American households to shield them from rising energy costs while we make the transition to renewable energy. We do not need to subsidize energy; given an effective price signal, the best entrepreneurs in the world will create a new gold rush for clean technologies. — Mark Reynolds, San Diego
NOV. 22, 2011
The Christianity-climate change connection By Elli Sparks Can you believe it? A south Texas evangelical Christian minister is in bed with a climate scientist. Literally, they are in bed together. He's the minister, and she's the scientist. They are married. Their sacred bond is helping Christians in the Lubbock Bible Church on the South Plains of Texas wrestle with the spiritual and political issues of climate change. Climate change has hit south Texas harder than other parts of the U.S., with devastating droughts and still-‐smoldering forest fires. Once the fires die and the drought continues, south Texas will experience "desertification." Let's get back to the kumbaya-‐ singing, hand-‐holding couple who spiritually guide parishioners through the maze of science and toward the glory of God. Andrew Farley, a linguistics professor and lead teaching pastor, is married to Katharine Hayhoe, research professor in geosciences at Texas Tech University. Together they wrote a book, "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-‐Based Decisions." Questions they hear from their flock are these: Isn't God in control? Won't it all work out?
How do we know this is not a natural cycle? Farley reminds them, "You reap what you sow." God doesn't preserve us from poor lifestyle choices. Eat junk food, and you get fat. Pour warming gases into the air, and the planet heats up. God calls that free will, and it's actually a gift. God doesn't preserve us from other people's poor choices, either. Bad things happen to good people. Drunken drivers can kill others, even children. Poor people without cars and electricity will feel the wrath of climate change even though they didn't pollute. Hayhoe simply says this: The planet is warming, and it doesn't look like a natural cycle. Things are getting too hot, too fast. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, we've been pumping warming gases into the air. You can measure those gases out of the tailpipe of any car or smokestack of any factory. We know how much CO {-‐2} we've created. Half of our exhaust is floating in the air. The ocean has sequestered the other half, which is why the coral reefs are dying. This couple disagree on the age of the Earth. Farley looks to the Bible. Hayhoe sticks with science. As couples in strong marriages do, they have agreed to disagree. They want to focus on the real issue: using God's gift of free will to
change the way we produce energy and fuel vehicles. How do we do that? Step one: Put a price on carbon dioxide to wean us off coal, oil and gas. Send a price signal to inspire massive amounts of investment money in wind, solar and other renewable technologies. The faster we make this transition, the quicker we will reduce our CO {-‐2} emissions. That's free will. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242) would speed that transition. It places a $10 tax on each ton of CO {-‐2} a fuel will emit when burned, increasing by $10 each year until U.S. CO {-‐2} emissions have fallen to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Because it will increase energy costs, this bill returns most of the revenue from the carbon tax to individuals in the form of an annual payment. In 10 years, that annual payment is expected to be $1,170. At that time, too, this bill is expected to have paid down $490 billion of the national debt, as the legislation devotes a portion of revenue for deficit reduction.
We can simultaneously protect American businesses and inspire other countries to change. The Save Our Climate Act calls for border adjustments, equivalent tariffs on imported goods from nations that don't have similar carbon pricing. These tariffs create a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. Why give money to the U.S. Treasury when they can keep that revenue in their own country? Perhaps more than most issues, climate change is a spiritual challenge with a political solution that industry must implement. We will need elected leaders and captains of industry to ground themselves spiritually. They will need to act from a place of love, not fear. Free will, I believe, only works when it comes from a place of love. I'm guessing God would say that, too. Elli Sparks is a volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby. Contact her at (804) 475- 6775 or elinorsparks@gmail.com.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 19, 2011
Re: New route planned for Keystone pipeline One of the Keystone protesters who got himself arrested at the White House was Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist. The Canadian government and Keystone supporters ignore the greenhouse gas problem attached to the pipeline. Instead they point to the badly-needed jobs the pipeline will create, despite the fact that energy retrofits and clean energy development create more jobs than fossil fuel.
The International Energy Agency warns of locking into a high carbon infrastructure. Hansen warns that further development of the tar sands will mean game over for the climate. As long as people recognize the opportunities of clean energy and the danger of fossil fuels for their children, the Keystone protest is far from over. Cheryl McNamara, Toronto
Â
 THU NOV 17, 2011 AT 09:25 AM PST
Becoming a Soldier for the Carbon Tax byenviro writerFollow
It's rather embarrassing to admit this, but up until a week ago, I knew precious little about climate/emissions legislation, either in the US or abroad. I could mumble something about the US's failure to pass a climate bill last year but couldn't tell you the name of it or what it was about or who cosponsored it. "Cap and Trade"? Yeah, I'd heard of it, but ask me to explain what it does? (admittedly, Cap and Trade schemes are rather confusing). I knew the EU had passed something, but that's because they're Europe, right? And what's with Australia? What did their "carbon price" (aka "carbon tax", aka "carbon fee") decision mean? You can't live in the DC Metro area for long before some wonkiness starts to rub off, however. I still have a lot to learn, but this week has been my crash course in climate law. I want to learn this stuff because I'm convinced that passing federal legislation will give us the best ROI, as they say - forcing all carbon polluters to fall in line. I'm happy to get arrested in front of the White House again, but fighting individual projects can only take you so far. There's one group that's devoted itself to getting climate legislation (specifically "Fee and Dividend" - a carbon tax scheme) back on the table: Citizens Climate Lobby. Last night I met with Nils Petermann who's in the midst of setting up a DC chapter of the organization. What is Fee and Dividend, you might ask?
Simply, the plan would raise taxes on carbon polluters based on the emissions they produce ("fee") and send that revenue to taxpayers as a check ("dividend"). There are other legislative frameworks out there, from a Fee and Deficit Reduction plan to Cap and Trade and Cap and Dividend, but F&D's the plan that James Hansen and other climate scientists are putting their weight behind, largely because the public is the primary beneficiary and emitters are rewarded for reducing, rather than offsetting, CO2. In theory, Republicans should be supportive of a carbon tax - and in fact, some notable conservative economists do support it, albeit one that replaces the dividend portion of the plan with lower income taxes (a "Tax Shift" plan, if you will): Kevin Hassett at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Gregory Mankiw, economic advisor to Mitt Romney. Hell, even American Petroleum Institute members have voiced support for a carbon tax. Unfortunately, according to Petermann, such sensible conservative think tank-iness doesn't translate well to a world of conservative politics still beholden to "drill baby, drill" sentiment. It's necessary to talk about Republican perspectives on taxing carbon because legislation simply won't get passed without some support from their side. At least not in today's political climate. "It's important for
Republicans to take ownership of this issue," said Petermann. Just last week, Australia passed its own carbon tax legislation despite some fierce and dramatic political opposition. The bill isn't perfect from an environmental standpoint and some conservative leaders are threatening to repeal the plan, but it's a big step in the right direction for one of the world's highest per capita carbon emitters. Australia's political landscape is different than the US, of course (their Green Party has representatives at the federal and state levels), but I think Australia's passage of a carbon price holds some lessons for the US. I'm especially interested in the strategies that grassroots organizations like GetUp and Say Yes used to garner support for the legislation. How did these groups push through heavy opposition not unlike what we face in the US? In terms of a legislative model for the US, Petermann is more apt to look to British Columbia than Australia. The "California of Canada" started enforcing its own "revenueneutral" carbon tax in 2008 and appears to be changing industry behavior and
gaining public supportthree years later. In the meantime, our own California is taking the Cap and Trade routethrough the AB32 law, passed back in 2006. As the euphoria of Obama's announcement on delaying the Keystone XL started wearing off, Bill McKibben's 350.org sent out a survey asking their engaged followers to suggest new movements to get behind. About 75 suggestions were made (as of this writing) and right behind #1 (fracking) was removing oil subsidies and passing Fee and Dividend. Now the trick will be to turn "carbon price" into a positive household term among the American public and fence-sitters in Congress. If you'd like to join the movement to pass a carbon tax, check out the Citizens Climate Lobbywebsite. They hold regular conference calls to let people know what they're about, and an annual conference. They are also have chapters around the country. Join CCL and you'll likely be supporting a cause that has the best chance of making an impact on the US's outsized carbon monster.
Erica Flock blogs on global environmental issues here, where this post was originally published.
Â
EDITORIAL, NOV. 14, 2011
Tax carbon to slow climate change A few weeks ago, after conducting a multi-‐year study funded in fair measure by the ultra-‐conservative billionaire Koch brothers, University of California professor Richard Muller, one of the more credible skeptics of global warming, announced his findings. The great majority of scientists who claimed that the world's climate was warming at a fair clip, Muller said, are right. Muller's findings produced a gamut of responses. In climate skeptic circles, he had committed apostasy. In the broader scientific community the reaction was essentially, "What took you so long? Didn't you notice that the glaciers are disappearing, permafrost melting, sea level rising and polar bears drowning?" Last month, nine Democrats in the U.S. House decided to swim upstream through the sewage that is Washington politics to introduce the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that would impose, at its onset, a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Their goal is to reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. In the current political climate, for such a bill to stand a chance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's ice cream cone would have to melt all over his hand before he could raise it to his mouth. But the act's proponents shouldn't give up. With a presidential race under way and major contenders like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney campaigning on "drill, baby, drill" platforms, it's the perfect time to offer an alternative vision of America's energy future. The climate act, whose chief sponsor is California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, would raise a whopping $2.6 trillion over the next decade, most of which would be rebated to
energy users who would pay more for power that was produced with less harm to the environment. The rest of the money would go toward deficit reduction, spending that will reduce the tax burden on future generations. To prevent the tax from imposing an unfair disadvantage on American companies, the bill wisely calls for the carbon tax to be applied in tariff form to imported goods. A carbon tax, compared to cap-‐and-‐trade systems like the regional compact that New Hampshire participates in, is easy to administrate. It requires minimal bureaucracy, is less easy to game and is a more direct means of reducing emissions. Emit more carbon dioxide and pay more in taxes; switch to a cleaner form of power, pay less. The climate is warming and would continue to heat up if all carbon emissions were curtailed tomorrow. The question is how hot will it get and how soon. The nation, indeed the world, is engaged in a race between the technology required to produce energy without fueling climate change and the technology required to extract fossil fuels long thought too expensive to recover. At the moment fossil fuel recovery technology is winning. Vast supplies of natural gas are being tapped, deep-‐water oil fields developed and Canada's vast supply of oil locked in tar sands extracted. The profits from the development of those energy resources will go to investors, but the added harm from global warming will be paid by everyone. A tax on carbon would recognize that harm, raise money to mitigate it, and make alternative forms of energy more competitive economically. It's a tax that's long overdue.
NOV. 6, 2011
Joe Orso: A solution to climate change Some people worry about climate change. Some people deny it. Madeleine Para cut her teaching job to half-‐time so she could volunteer the other half trying to stop it. Two Christmases ago, Para found “Storms of My Grandchildren,” a book by respected climate scientist James Hansen, on her mother’s coffee table. Driving home from Chicago to Madison, she and her husband talked about the book, and their lives changed. “We looked at each other and said, ‘If this is true then we can’t just keep leading our lives the way we have been,’” Para said. “That was the point I decided I had to become a climate activist.” Para will speak at 7 p.m. on Tuesday at Western Technical College in Viroqua, 220 S. Main St., about the organization that animates much of her climate work. Citizens Climate Lobby is a 3-‐year-‐old organization working to empower citizens and get Congress to pass legislation that would foster a stable climate. For those whose eyes just glazed over, for those who have given up on Congress’s ability to accomplish anything meaningful, please keep reading. Mark Reynolds, executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby, said they learned from other successful lobbyists that “if you are organized, if you are disciplined, if you have structure, then regular people in congressional districts could get Congress to do things that were off-‐the-‐ charts unpredictable.” Believing that the best way to reduce carbon emissions, like the best way to
reduce cigarette-‐smoking, is to raise its price, the organization wrote a two-‐page bill that would charge the fossil-‐fuel industry a fee of $15 per ton of emissions they generate, and then raise it about $10 a year for 10 years. The revenues would be returned to citizens as dividend checks, so that consumers would be cushioned from the affects of rising energy prices as we all transition to clean energy. Reynolds said the carbon fee and dividend legislation would send a clear signal to the market that there was money to be made in solar, wind and geothermal. Seeing that, entrepreneurs, banks and venture capitalists would “come flying off the sidelines” to invest in renewable energy. “This is not one of those one-‐time marches that is going to solve things,” Reynolds said on the lobby’s most recent monthly conference call, during which he introduces the organization to people from around the country. “We view this the same as the effort it would take to end slavery or get women the vote.” A version of the bill was recently introduced by California congressman Pete Stark as the Save Our Climate Act. Para was attracted to the organization exactly because of its work with the carbon fee and dividend legislation, which climatologist Hansen promotes in his book, and for which he has endorsed Citizens Climate Lobby. In February, she started a Madison chapter and now is working to get a chapter started in every Wisconsin congressional district.
“You have your up days and your down days, but weekly I get to hear from people across the country about what they’re doing and so that gives me a sense of momentum and connection,” Para said. “It’s not that I don’t have my episodes of thinking it’s too late, it’s lost. But then I just keep one foot going in front of the other, and optimism usually comes back.” She said the lobby has a support system for its activists better than any organization she has been in.
She sees Citizens Climate Lobby as her home base for climate work, and said they have empowered her to build relationships with key decision-‐makers, like congress members and newspaper editorial boards, as well as leaders who usually fall outside the traditional environmental camp. “We don’t have tens of thousands of people,” she said, “but the people we do have are incredible activists and organizers who, like me, work at it consistently.”
MADISON, WISCONSIN EDITORIAL, NOV. 3, 2011
Get behind the Save Our Climate Act California congressman Pete Stark, saying we’re running out of time to wean the country off fossil fuels that are heating up the planet, has introduced the Save Our Climate Act in an effort to halt the worst effects of climate change. Stark’s bill would tax coal, oil and gas based on the amount of carbon dioxide these fuels emit when burned. The tax would start at $10 per ton of CO2 and increase $10 each year until carbon dioxide levels fall to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Most of the revenues from the tax — estimated at $2.6 trillion in the first 10 years — would be returned to consumers as an annual rebate to offset what are likely to be higher energy costs. A portion of the revenue — $490 billion — would go to help balance the federal budget. The introduction of the bill was a victory for the Citizens Climate Lobby, a nationwide organization with a chapter here in Madison. Believing that the so-‐called cap-‐ and-‐trade plan to reduce emissions is dead, the citizens lobby has been advocating a plan it calls the “carbon free and dividend” plan. The plan is revenue neutral, requires no new government money or positions, and would direct investment toward clean energy.
Stark’s bill incorporates most of the Citizens Climate Lobby’s goals. Madeleine Para, who has been heading the Madison chapter since it was organized earlier this year, applauded the news, as do we. She and a group of other Madisonians recently spent time in Washington, where they met with 160 members of Congress in an effort to get them to support the plan. Para said that more people have been coming back to the realization that the world is facing climate change. In addition to providing an incentive for companies to invest in clean energy, the tax on carbon and the return of it as dividends to consumers would also reduce the need for the federal government to fund experimental firms like the ill-‐fated Solyndra solar panel manufacturer.
Stark’s proposal faces a long path through the halls of Congress, but it is one that deserves strong public support if we’re going to save the environment from further CO2 damage. Wisconsin’s congressional delegation needs to get behind the Save Our Climate Act, as do the rest of us.
Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less. Copyright 2011 madison.com. All rights reserved.
Posted in Editorial on Thursday, November 3, 2011 4:30 am Updated: 4:41 pm. Save Our Climate Act, Pete Stark, Fossil Fuel, Tax, Citizens Climate Lobby, Madeleine Para, Clean Energy,
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 10, 2011
Bill would attack CO2 as cause for warming
It's invisible. It's odorless. It's naturally occurring, but carbon dioxide is insidiously increasing in our atmosphere and now, ("Greenhouse Gas Takes Big Jump," ADN, Nov. 4, 2011) it appears the rate of increase is greater than previously predicted. The vast majority of climatologists world-‐ wide agree that the ominous rise in greenhouse gases is man-‐caused and is impacting the planet's climate. Richard Muller, ("Skeptic Accepts Global Warming," ADN Oct. 31, 2011) now agrees that the science is sound and that global warming is occurring. We should be worried that our
children and grandchildren will live in a more perilous world if this problem continues unabated. The U.S. has been to slow to take action, but Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., has introduced H.B. 3242 -‐-‐ Save Our Climate Act -‐-‐ that proposes a tax on carbon-‐based fuels with the revenue being returned back to individuals to offset the higher cost of energy. This will reduce fossil fuel burning and make investment in renewable forms of energy more attractive. Let's get behind this or a similar plan. -- John R. DeLapp
October 27, 2011
Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby
At last, a bill to tax carbon Admittedly, it's a long shot that Rep. Pete Stark's (D-CA)Save Our Climate Act of 2011, introduced Monday, will ever make it out of committee, but having been a Mets fan in 1969, I do believe in miracles. If nothing else, Stark's bill reopens the conversation that abruptly ceased after the 2010 mid-term election about climate change and how best to address it. Rather than nibbling at the edges with a regulation here and a higher fuel efficiency standard there -good things, for sure, but insufficient to tackle the problem -- Stark's bill goes right to the heart of the problem: The need to put a price on carbon that weans our nation off fossil fuels and reduces the greenhouse gases that are altering the Earth's climate. Remarkably simple at 18 pages, the Save Our Climate Act calls for a tax starting at $10 per ton on the carbon dioxide that a fuel would emit when burned. The tax would be imposed at the first point of sale -- at the mine, well or port of entry. Each year, it would increase by $10 a ton, sending a clear predictable price signal to the investment community that wind, solar and other alternative sources of energy will be a smart bet. Underscoring the importance of a clear price signal on carbon is the recent 2011 Global Investor Statement on Climate. Representing 285 investors holding assets of $20 trillion, the statement concluded: "Private investment can and must play a critical role in addressing the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. However, private sector investment will only flow at the scale and pace necessary if it is supported by clear, credible and long-term domestic and international policy frameworks -- "investment-grade climate change and energy policies" -- that shift the balance in favour of low-carbon investment opportunities." If enacted, Stark's bill would generate massive amounts of revenue, a tantalizing prospect in cash-strapped Washington. But rather than spend the money on a plethora of pet projects or sops to the fossil fuel industry, the Save Our Climate Act would divvy up most of the revenue and return it to American consumers as an annual payment. The "dividend" from the carbon tax would therefore offset rising energy costs that households will experience from the carbon tax. And the more people do to reduce their carbon footprint -- increasing energy efficiency, driving electric or hybrid vehicles -- the more dividend they get to keep.
As I said, "most" of the revenue would be returned to households. The legislation will take a small portion of the money to pay down the national debt. The Carbon Tax Center estimates that in 10 years time this would eliminate close to half a trillion dollars of our nation's $15 trillion debt. In the second year of the tax, $10 per ton would go to debt reduction and be applied to that purpose in subsequent years. The amount returning to households would continue to rise as the tax increases each year. In 10 years time, when the tax reaches $100 per ton, $10 of every $100 would be devoted to debt reduction and $90 would be given back to consumers. At that point, the Carbon Tax Center estimates the average annual dividend would be $1,170. The timing of Stark's bill appears propitious, as the campaign to stop the Keystone XL pipeline has re-energized the anti-carbon fuel movement. The turning point for that campaign occurred around Labor Day with the arrest of more than 1,200 peaceful protestors outside the White House calling for Obama to reject the pipeline. The campaign, spearheaded by 350.org's Bill McKibben, has galvanized support throughout the environmental community, making it harder and harder for the administration to say "yes" to TransCanada. Those efforts will culminate in a protest on Nov. 6, where thousands of people are expected to circle the White House. Stopping Keystone XL, of course, is only the beginning. It will temporarily curtail the supply of oil, but not our insatiable thirst. To preserve a livable world, we must also reduce demand for fossil fuels, and the best way to reduce demand is to increase the price. If the people who responded to the call to action on Keystone XL expend a similar effort to support Stark's bill, there may be hope for us yet. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate
Â
OCT. 25, 2011
House Dems, swimming upstream, push carbon tax By Ben Geman Nine liberal House Democrats are floating legislation to impose a carbon tax on fossil-‐fuel producers and importers, a measure they say would cut the deficit by a half-‐trillion dollars and steer $2 trillion to consumers over a decade. Some climate analysts say a carbon tax on production of oil, coal and other fossil fuels is a simpler and more efficient way to stem greenhouse gas emissions than cap-‐and-‐trade systems. But tax proposals likely face even longer political odds than cap-‐and-‐ trade legislation, which collapsed on Capitol Hill last year. Nonetheless, Rep. Pete Stark (D-‐ Calif.), the bill’s lead sponsor, said the tax plan is a vital way to help avert dangerous warming. The bill, which begins with a tax of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide and goes up from there, is aimed at cutting U.S. emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels over several decades.
“We have a moral obligation to act to prevent catastrophic climate change and preserve our planet for future generations,” said Stark, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, in a statement. “The Save Our Climate Act is a first step toward meeting that obligation and creating a sensible tax code that incentivizes innovation, reduces the deficit and protects families from rising energy costs.” Co-‐sponsors include Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-‐Ariz.), who co-‐chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Jim Moran (D-‐Va.), Bob Filner (D-‐Calif.) and five others. The bill drew cheers from groups that promote carbon taxes. “We’re running out of time to wean our nation off the fossil fuels that are heating up the planet,” said Citizens Climate Lobby Executive Director Mark Reynolds in a statement. “We need to put a price on carbon that shifts energy usage to clean sources, and that’s what Congressman Stark’s bill does.”
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 17, 2011
Military lauded for green energy support I’d like to thank these senior military officers who authored “Why we must support clean energy: national security” (Opinion, Oct. 13) for their insight and clear direction. With the military urging prompt action to combat climate change and redouble our efforts to transition to clean energy, it is time our elected officials listened – and listened carefully. Sadly, it seems to have become popular among some Republicans,
including most of the presidential candidates, to speak with angry and dismissive rhetoric these days about climate change, regulation of greenhouse gases or the need to press forward now with clean energy. You have to hope the wisdom shared does not continue to fall on deaf and stubbornly uninformed ears. When will the rational voices in both parties speak up? We need a price on carbon. -‐-‐ John H. Reaves, San Diego
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 15, 2011
Energy and security In response to “Why we must support clean energy: national security” (Opinion, Oct. 13): As climate change reduces food productivity, fragile nations will soon become failed states, requiring more American intervention when we are already stretched too thin. Perhaps the leadership the writers exhibited as military officers will inspire similar leadership from San Diego’s Republican congressional delegation – Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa and Duncan Hunter. Such inspiration would lead them to support a predicable, steadily increasing fee on
carbon-‐based fuels that would transition our nation from dirty energy to clean energy. This solution is supported by prominent economists, such as Arthur Laffer of the Reagan administration and Greg Mankiw of the Bush administration. If we return all revenue from the carbon fee to consumers, we will shield households from the impact of rising energy costs and allow Republicans to keep pledges they may have made to support only revenue-‐ neutral solutions on climate change. -‐-‐ Mark Reynolds, Citizens Climate Lobby, Coronado
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 14, 2011
A carbon dividend Re “Harper’s no fossil fool” (Editorial, Oct. 11): Cap-‐and-‐trade is wrought with too many challenges to be a significant driver in innovation and greenhouse gas emission mitigation. There is a carbon pricing mechanism that Conservatives should look at — carbon fee-‐and-‐dividend. Taxpayers pay for carbon emissions through their health and environmental clean up. Put a price on
carbon when it enters the market, increase it incrementally every year, and give the dividend back to taxpayers. This will send a market signal to invest in clean energy, which will diversify our economy. It will also help taxpayers shoulder rising costs in carbon until cleaner forms of energy become more affordable. Cheryl McNamara
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 14, 2011
A mature science Re: Global warming, global worries (Oct. 11). Tom Harris said, "No one really knows whether warming or cooling lies in the decades ahead -‐-‐ the science is simply too immature." This is preposterous. Is something older than 180 years immature? The existence of global warming gases were first proposed by the great mathematician Joseph Fourier in the early 1820s to explain why the Earth was warmer than one would expect given its distance from the sun. Tyndall discovered in 1859 that carbon dioxide and water were transparent to the light from the sun but absorbed heat energy, and then radiated that heat energy, somewhat like glass in a greenhouse. By 1896, Svante Arrhenius completed laborious numerical computations that linked the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the temperature in Europe. To this date, these calculations remain accurate. In the 21st century, 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that human greenhouse gas production by burning of fossil fuels and land use practices are causing drastic changes in the climate. If 97 out of 100 doctors gave you a diagnosis that you had a terminal condition you could cure if
you gradually eliminated one bad habit, would you not take that advice? CATHY ORLANDO Citizen Climate Lobby Sudbury, Ont. Tom Harris is part of a well-‐ organized campaign to confuse the public about the science of climate change, creating the illusion that there is a debate when there really isn't. Harris and his ilk have taken a page out of the playbook of the tobacco companies, which denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer for decades, confusing the public and delaying public health action. In fact, Harris's resume shows he worked for APCO Worldwide, the PR firm hired by tobacco giant Phillip Morris in 1993 to do just that. It's unfortunate that the Free Press allowed Harris a pulpit to spread his petroleum propaganda, without disclosing his close ties to the oil and gas industry. The reality is that 98 per cent of climate scientists -‐-‐ folks who actually do the research -‐-‐ agree the Earth is warming and human activity from burning fossil fuels is the main reason. CHRISTINE PENNER POLLE Red Lake, Ont.
Blueprint for a Renewable Energy Infrastructure Bank By Joseph Robertson, Oct. 12, 2011 We need a system of cooperative public-private infrastructure financing, a national infrastructure bank. But we also need to use that fabric of cooperative investment and output to foster specific areas of major improvement to our national economy. The model could be replicated across the world, but the US is uniquely positioned to deploy this solution and to vastly improve its chances of restoring vibrancy to the wider middle class by doing so. Two parallel projects are necessary to make the infrastructure redevelopment and economic recovery strategy a success: •
•
a renewable energy infrastructure bank - to help target some of the wider funding options to the project of building a sustainable, smart energy economy, free of the massive externalized costs of carbon-based fuels an economic opportunity bank - to aggressively, specifically and persistently direct funds to businesses that are hiring, building capacity at the community level, and restoring real wage gains to the middle class
The first is our topic here: a national renewable energy infrastructure bank. To build such a bank, we would need to first establish how a cooperative public-private infrastructure financing scheme would work. Ideally, it needs to work much like an investment bank, where individual investors see visible gains, but money is kept in the pot for a long enough period of time to produce gain across the full spectrum of investor contributions. In other words, there has to be commitment to the project, and that shared commitment of resources will yield shared substantial gains to all parties. In the area of clean energy investment, this is possibly much easier than with other types of infrastructure investment, because the industry is entering into a period of massive, and necessary, prolonged expansion. Big investors understand that big investment will help to secure that prolonged expansion. If Congress acts to incentivize this investment, massive amounts of private-sector capital will flow to clean energy resources. There are three reasons why this will happen: 1. Fossil fuels carry with them massive production costs that have long been externalized; the economy can no longer afford to continue such a strategy. 2. Clean energy technologies offer a major opportunity for prolonged expansion of business value, as
Â
information technologies have shown over the last 30 years. 3. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of private capital sitting on the sidelines, waiting for directional certainty that fossil fuels cannot provide. So, how to structure such an operation? The renewable energy infrastructure bank would need the following to reach its full potential: 1. A national price signal or clear set of incentives to direct investment to clean energy 2. An investment strategy that looks at best practices, value to community, prospects for building aggregate demand, and structural resiliency 3. A focus on job-creation, skilled retraining, and positive value feedback loops that favor consumers 4. A legislative charter that sets forth priorities favorable to public-sector, private-sector and start-up investors alike 5. A model for redirecting funding when key elements of a project require support or restructuring 6. A focus on rewarding institutions, individuals and investors who do cutting-edge R&D that is practicable, 100% carbon-emissions-free and scalable 7. Short-, medium- and long-term investment strategies for building, optimizing and utilizing the smart grid
Suggestions for deployment: 1. Implement a national carbon fee and dividend policy, to correct market failures in the pricing of carbon, return control of the energy economy to households and incentivize major private capital investment in the rapidly expanding clean tech sector 2. Identify, build or support and expand, focus facilities in cities and regions across the country, to operate as cooperative laboratories of R&D, start-up incubators, and investment engines (examples might be Brooklyn Navy Yard or Philadelphia Navy Yard, or the Fab Labs project) 3. Motivate scalability planning for distributed clean energy production projects, to ensure sustained investment opportunities, and optimized overlap between communitybuilding, job-creation and investment strategies, for higher overall cost efficiency 4. Ensure legal support for avoiding corrosive business models, favoring generative ones, to ensure Investment flows to the new technologies and collaborative strategies that build future prosperity, not to extraction-oriented investments 5. Reward rapid ramping up of highefficiency clean energy tech, because this will build structural resiliency, favor the highest-value market-healing technologies, and help to revive the middle class
Â
We can begin doing this nationally tomorrow, if: •
•
•
•
•
We focus first on wind and solar, due to their naturally occurring US domestic supply far outstripping total demand and all possible demand growth We commit to decentralizing innovation, influence and incomegrowth in the energy sector, so community and regional economies are empowered by the transition We recognize the need to fully develop leading-edge infrastructure at all levels We identify and elevate the pioneers who already know how to motivate and execute this transition We charter public-private partnerships to manage investment flows to stakeholder-defined initiatives The clean energy economy is coming, and to fully enable its expansion, the US needs to flex the muscle necessry to turn the ship of state, to wrest from entrenched industries and financial investment patterns rooted more in extraction than in generative payoff the ability to decide what comes next. There is nothing beyond clean and renewable in terms of energy production and distribution, except the work of achieving the most advanced efficiency gains and making robust power generation an ever more ephemeral affair, at an ever faster rate.
To lead in that new economy, we need to be the first to build its value.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCTOBER 12, 2011
A cloud over Solyndra deal
The Post’s editorial raises some good points about the government’s handling of the Solyndra loan guarantees. But if government bureaucrats are “crappy” venture capitalists with no skin in the game themselves, what is the alternative? Given the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs, it’s in our best interest to help the clean-‐energy sector thrive and grow. How can we do that without putting taxpayer money at risk? By placing a gradually increasing fee on
carbon-‐based fuels and giving the revenue back to consumers. A clear, predictable price on carbon will move massive amounts of private investment into solar, wind and other technologies. Returning revenue to households will prevent rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee from becoming a burden on consumers. Mark Reynolds, Coronado, Calif. The writer is executive director of the Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS, OCT. 10, 2011
Energy sense Re "Keystone: the wrong question," Editorial, Oct. 6 The Times is correct to assume that the subsidies business. Giving the stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will money back to consumers will shield not decrease the demand for tar sands households from the economic impact oil. The only sure way to decrease of energy costs associated with the demand for carbon-‐based fuels is to carbon fee. raise the cost. But can we do so Let's stop the pipeline because of without hurting our economy? the risk it poses to natural resources. Certainly — by putting a steadily But let's put a price on carbon to rising fee on oil, gas and coal and reduce demand for tar sands oil. giving the revenue back to the American people as direct payments. Mark Reynolds The price signal of a carbon fee will Coronado, Calif. unleash massive amounts of private The writer is executive director of the investment for clean energy, perhaps Citizens Climate Lobby. allowing the government to get out of
OIL PIPELINE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 7, 2011
TransCanada pipeline isn’t the answer for U.S. The controversy surrounding the TransCanada pipeline doesn’t surprise me (“Pipeline emails raise bias question,” News, Oct. 4). What surprises me is that we would take private lands to benefit foreign corporations and keep us addicted to foreign oil. Why not build battery-‐swapping stations throughout the United States, so our car companies can build electric cars and light trucks that run on standardized battery packs? Need a charge? Just drive through a battery-‐ swapping station and get a recharged battery.
We could rebuild the railroads to run on electricity. The railroads would become the much-‐needed electric grid tying together wind and solar farms. We could also place a fee on fossil fuels and give this back to households, encouraging private investment needed to rebuild America into an energy-‐independent nation — with plenty of jobs, healthier people and a bright future, where a TransCanada pipeline proposal would simply be a bad pipe dream. Todd Smith, Jasper
OCTOBER 07, 2011
LETTERS
PRODS FROM GOVERNMENT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY
Put price on carbon without forcing consumers to foot the bill REGARDING JOHN Sununu’s column ("Public burned by solar loans,’’ Op-ed, Oct. 3), I agree on one thing: The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the clean-energy field. But given the risks associated with climate change and the need to create jobs, it is still smart policy to create incentives for the expansion of clean energy. Is there a way to do that without using subsidies at taxpayer expense? Here’s my suggestion: Put a steadily increasing fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue to all households. A clear, predictable price on carbon would unleash massive amounts of private investment that would flow to solar, wind, and other emerging technologies.
The marketplace would then determine which of these businesses succeed and fail based on their ability to compete. Returning revenue to households would shield consumers from the impact of higher energy costs associated with the carbon fee. Making the fee revenueneutral might also entice support from Republicans who do not wish to expand the size of government. Sununu raises good questions about the government’s role in clean energy, but let’s give the private sector a reason to step up by putting a price on carbon. Mark Reynolds Executive director Citizens Climate Lobby Coronado, Calif.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 6, 2011
Don’t support Keystone project NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript: Let’s run the numbers: TransCanada claims: 20,000 direct jobs. State Dept. analysis says: 5,000 to 6,000. Actual local hires in South Dakota when Keystone 1 was built (in 2010) — 11 percent. (FOIA data from Case Number: HP09-‐00 I — provided by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.) That track-‐record would change 5,000 to 6,000 jobs to 550 to 660 local American hires. But, of course, those 550 to 660 jobs have to be spread out over 1,711 miles, from Montana to Texas. Oklahoma would be lucky to get 60 or 70 — a far cry from the bloated 20,000 jobs claim.
Sadly, the unions drank the corporate Koolaid. Even worse, they have crawled in bed with the very same companies who sent millions of their union jobs overseas. We have a saying in the South: “My mamma didn’t raise no fool.” What has happened to the unions and common sense? I am a lifetime member of my teacher’s union, which joined with the UAW to picket Mid-‐Del Schools back in the ’80s. I was on the picket line. Unions should be threatening to picket this fraudulent tar sands project, Keystone XL, not promoting it. Mary Francis Norman
October 5, 2011
Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby
We the People… Want to Price Carbon I've never put a lot of stock in online petitions. Ask any member of Congress why they voted for a particular piece of legislation, and chances are they won't say, "It was the 20,000 signatures on that Internet site that won me over." I've always held that a dozen personal, handwritten letters are far more persuasive than thousands of clicks on a Web page. But when the White House recently launched their "We The People" petition site, I thought I'd give it a shot. I figured if they're asking for our opinion, they might just listen. And there's a payoff if you get enough signatures. Any petition that crosses the 5,000 threshold will be reviewed by the appropriate staff, who will send a response out to all who signed the petition. My thinking was this: Given the little PR problem the president is having lately with the Solyndra failure, perhaps he's looking for advice on ways that we can expand cleanenergy businesses without rolling the dice with taxpayer money. So, I came up with a petition of my own: Put a fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue to households. “We believe the Obama Administration should propose legislation that would place a gradually-increasing fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue from that fee to American consumers. Such a fee would motivate private investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, creating new jobs and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Returning revenue to consumers would shield households from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee.”
The failure of Solyndra is no indication that solar -- or other types of clean energy -- is a bad investment. A recent Brookings study shows clean tech has been the fastest growing sector over the last seven years and is producing jobs at an amazing clip. The Solyndra failure simply tells us that the government doesn't need to be picking winners and losers in clean energy. If we put a clear, predictable price on carbon, private
investment will make federal subsidies look like chump change, and the shift to carbonfree power will be off and running. The marketplace will decide which businesses emerge on top and which fall by the wayside -- without the loss of federal funds. With loan-guarantee programs for clean energy on the defensive, a price on carbon is needed now more than ever to keep investment flowing to solar, wind and other alternatives to fossil fuels. Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) is about to introduce a bill similar to what's proposed in the petition. His legislation would take a portion of carbon tax revenue to pay down the deficit and give the rest back to consumers. (More on that in a later post.) In the meantime, let's see if we can get the White House on board. Aside from putting carbon pricing back on Obama's radar, here's another reason we need a good showing on this petition: As evidenced by their impending approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, the White House has made the political calculation that they have less to lose by ignoring climate change than they do by acting to stop it. In every way possible, Americans need to let the administration know this is a bad assumption. Signing this petition -- and the one to stop the pipeline -- is one way to do that. There's one little catch with the petitions. We have 30 days to amass 5,000 signatures. Otherwise, nobody in the West Wing will give a hoot. I've been circulating this petition for a week, now, and it's getting some traction -- about 700 signatures. But I could us a little help. If it sounds like a good idea to you, sign on and pass it along. If we don't hit the 5,000 mark, it'll be pretty disappointing, especially in view of the fact that pot smokers already have 50,000 signatures to legalize marijuana. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate
Â
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 4, 2011
Benefits wouldn’t outweigh cost of Keystone XL pipeline NORMAN — Numerous oppositional arguments to the proposed pipeline have been presented, and I agree with all. It is said that many jobs will be created by pipeline construction and operation, but the numbers are exaggerated, and, more important, almost all of the jobs are temporary and the pipeline would increase local environmental problems. Part of President Obama’s inaugural address, presented in January, 2009, was as follows: “That we are now in the midst of a crisis is well understood. ... Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. ...” Now we have one of the so-‐called hard choices, but it is really simple! Construction of the proposed Keystone pipeline would facilitate continued dependence on petroleum in the U.S., and environmental destruction in Canada. It is clearly not in our national interest, nor is it in the global interest, and it should not be built. There can be many more jobs here that would help solve long-‐range problems. For example, our oil usage is about twice the per capita usage in Europe, which has a far more extensive
system for transportation by rail. This situation in our country would be relieved by construction jobs for development here of energy-‐efficient systems for transportation by rail. Our society needs to make a large transition away from oil, but this has not occurred in spite of decades-‐long warnings. Such transition will be painful, but less painful than the transition that would be forced on us soon by natural processes. Such natural processes arise from increase of population and associated emissions of greenhouse gases, and from associated resource depletion and rising prices of food and other essentials. The Keystone XL pipeline would exacerbate these problems. It would postpone the societal transition that we sorely need, and it would facilitate the environmentally destructive and grossly emissive mining of tar sands in Ontario. Jared Diamond, in his book, Collapse, notes that societal demise is often a sudden consequence of environmental neglects and environmental destruction. We must not fall victim to attitudes of hubris and exceptionalism. EDWIN KESSLER Norman
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011
Climate change critical issue Thank you for putting Charles Hanley's article, highlighting the increasing threat of climate change and rising American skepticism, on the front page of the Sept. 25 paper. There is a deafening silence among Alaskan politicians and among too many in our population. Considering all that is at stake, it is unconscionable
for "deniers" to make absurd claims, cherry picking facts with the intent to misrepresent and cloud the issue. Thank you for your courage in reporting on this too often lonely but critically important issue. -- Meg Coe Anchorage
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011
What Milankovitch forcing really means In response to Darrell Beck's letter (Sept. 14), and as a Ph.D. candidate in paleoclimatology at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, I feel responsible to correct some of his confusion. The Milankovitch Theory of Climate Change refers to subtle changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the tilt of Earth's axis and the trend in the direction of that axis with respect to the fixed stars. Collectively, the influence that these three dominant orbital changes have on Earth's energy balance is rather small. Scientists have linked these orbital variations to the timing of glacials and interglacials (more or less ice) for the past 3 million years
based on evidence from all over the world. Mr. Beck's part about "geological evidence found primarily in the Sahara Desert" is simply meaningless. Geological evidence for the orbital theory of climate change comes from all over the globe. It is true that all these same natural variations continue today. However, they happen over tens of thousands of years, not decades. They are background climate factors and they simply are not responsible for the increase in global temperatures over the past few decades. Sandra Turner Encinitas
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011
Tipping point In an article published in many newspapers around the country, Associated Press special correspondent Charles Hanley reported how denial of global warming has increased, primarily among Republicans, even as the evidence of human-‐caused warming has solidified. Unfortunately, denial of science can be dangerous, even deadly. For instance, in 2000, South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that the HIV virus caused AIDS. His administration refused to provide retroviral drugs in public hospitals. Sadly, an estimated 330,000 people died from AIDS because of his policy and denial. Since the time of Galileo, people have held on to cherished beliefs long
after science proved these beliefs wrong. Presently, the science of global warming is about as sound as the science of the Earth orbiting the sun. Hopefully, those clinging to the belief that man is not causing global warming will relinquish that cherished belief sooner rather than later. The Earth can reach a tipping point where the effects of methane release, melting ice and warming oceans will continue to propel destructive warming even if we completely stop burning fossil fuel. Every day that we delay acknowledging and acting on this issue, we come a day closer to that tipping point. David S. Folland
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011
Climate and forests The comprehensive front page story “Our Dying Forests” (Tribune, Sept. 25) should be a sobering wake-‐ up call to all of us. The beetle problem appears depressingly uncontainable, but how we got here is not new news. A number of factors have contributed to this, from fire-‐suppression policies to the decline of the timber industry. But the 800-‐pound gorilla in the room is clearly climate change: The West is in a prolonged drying trend and the winters are getting warmer. Gov. Gary Herbert, Rep. Rob Bishop, most Republicans (and some Democrats) can blame the government all they want for the demise of our Western forests, and
they are right to do so. But not for the reasons they think. The evidence is there, but our representatives continue to obfuscate and plead ignorance: We are causing (or, greatly accelerating) climate change, and until there is legislation — such as a carbon fee and dividend — we will continue to tip the environmental balance in favor of disaster. No amount of clear-‐cutting, dismantling the government or praying for rain is going to change the current trend. Intelligent consensus and concerted action would work, but we appear to be in short supply of both. Jeff Clay Salt Lake City
OCT. 1, 2011
Pipeline controversy: Jobs vs. the environment By Joy Hampton The Norman Transcript NORMAN — Controversy surrounding the Keystone Pipeline is not a battle between environmentalists and labor unions, said one of many workers the unions bused into Midwest City to speak at the Reed Center Exhibition Hall on Friday. Union workers build wind farms and other environmentally friendly infrastructures, he asserted. But voices heard at the Oklahoma public hearing on the controversial pipeline fell largely into those two categories. Representatives from oil companies and labor unions promoted the jobs they believe the project will bring. Environmentalists say the risk is too great. The pipeline, if approved, will be built by Calgary-‐based TransCanada in order to carry tar sands oil — a form of heavy crude — across the United States from Canada all the way to the Gulf Coast and the large-‐scale refineries there. The Golf Coast also allows for easy access to import the tar sands oil overseas, provoking the argument that the U.S. might take all of the risk and gain little of the profit from the Alberta oil deposits. Concern also was expressed that America’s underground aquifers, as well as its rivers and lakes, risk pollution by the project. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 344 members Kenny Whitson and James McDonald, of Oklahoma City, are typical
of the labor union members speaking on behalf of jobs. They discount concerns by environmentalists. “I think it’s people overreacting,” McDonald said. “There’ll be a lot of jobs for welders, operators digging ditches and getting it back the way they found it again,” Whitson said. “It isn’t anything new. It’s just the length and the enormity of the job that sets this one apart.” Oklahoma Sierra Club Chair Charles Wesner, of Norman, disagrees. “This pipeline is delivering very crude, heavy, corrosive tar sands bitumen containing far more toxic compounds and heavy metals than conventional crude across Oklahoma’s farm and ranch land, crossing almost all our major rivers or their tributaries and important aquifers. Leaks and spills are common occurrences from such pipelines,” Wesner said. “A pipeline leak would have devastating effects.” John Felmy, Ph.D. and chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, said the pipeline is essential to the economy. “I’m from a pipeline family,” Felmy said. “This in an important issue for me both professionally and privately.” The American Petroleum Institute is a national trade association and advocacy group that represents the oil and natural gas industry and negotiates with regulatory agencies. “It’s basically bringing in an extra supply,” Felmy said. “The one thing it will do is open up Cushing.”
Felmy said the hub of storage tanks at Cushing has become a bottleneck with no way to get oil to the greater market. “Even if we do export it, that’s a wonderful job opportunity,” Felmy said. To environmentalists’ criticism that jobs produced by the pipeline project would be short-‐term, Felmy said that doesn’t matter. “We need jobs in short term, we need jobs in the long run,” he said. Those “short-‐term” jobs mean work for a couple of years and the economy needs that boost right now, Felmy said. Chris Applegate, of Norman, works in the energy industry doing mapping. He’s also a member of the Sierra Club. “We now have the technology today to extract oil and natural gas that, at one time, we were unable to get out of the ground,” Applegate said. “We need to keep energy in our own country.” Applegate said horizontal drilling and fracking have made greater production possible. And while he agrees with environmentalists that fracking needs oversight, he said the improvements in technology have made it a reasonable process to use for extraction. “Until wind, hydrogen and solar come into play more, we’re going to need natural gas and oil. That’s the reality,” Applegate said. Applegate supports decreased reliance on fossil fuels but, in the meantime, supports local oil production, not a pipeline from Canada. John McDowell of Norman said he has worked in oil and gas exploration for 40
years. He opposes transporting tar sands by pipeline. “I don’t have anything against the pipeline,” McDowell said. “My complaint is the stuff they’re transporting through it.” McDowell said tar sands crude is at “high risk of corrosive rupture.” It will be shipped through the pipeline unrefined. “The U.S. ... has ample oil reserves,” McDowell said. Pat McCauley, of Moore, came to speak against the pipeline because she believes it’s important to have a voice. “I just believe you have to put your body where your beliefs are,” McCauley said. She said though her voice may not change anything, but it’s important to her to try. “If we don’t try, we can’t complain about it later,” McCauley said. Retired teacher and Norman resident Mary Francis was also on hand to speak against the pipeline. Last month, Francis was among environmental activists who participated in a peaceful protest in front of the White House in an attempt to get President Barack Obama’s attention. The president has the power to stop the pipeline project. “This issue will be a defining moment for this administration,” Wesner, said. “Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security,” Francis said. Joy Hampton 366-‐3539 jhampton@ normantranscript.com Like me on Facebook
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 1, 2011
A serious carbon tax debate is needed today There is little to disagree with in Buzz Belleville's Op/Ed column, "Reinventing a revenue-‐neutral carbon tax proposal," but one aspect warrants comment. The price of carbon should not be determined solely by the magnitude of existing tax credits. Today, tax credits are a minor part of the overall energy economy. The cost advantage for renewable energy sourcesmust be large enough to stimulate the investment needed to build out supporting infrastructure on the same scale as exists for fossil fuels today. Using existing tax credits to determine the price of carbon would not provide price advantages to renewable energy sufficient to motivate investors to support companies in building this infrastructure.
A better solution would be to put a fee on carbon that would increase by a fixed amount every year. All proceeds could continue to be returned to households as under Belleville's proposal. This approach would give investors the price certainty they need to make well-‐reasoned investment decisions, and it would signal that massive investments in clean energy infrastructure are warranted based on guaranteed future price differentials. Thank you for publishing Belleville's column. It is an important contribution to a critical debate we need to be having in our country. Gary Rucinski. Newton, Mass.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 27, 2011
Fee on carbon is inevitable All the leaders of the provincial parties dance around the terms of a price on carbon because of its political implications. However, a fee on carbon is inevitable since Canada must eventually participate in a global campaign to combat growing greenhouse gas emissions. All parties should consider a carbon fee and dividend approach that puts a predetermined and steadily increasing
price on carbon while returning 100 per cent of the revenue in the form of a dividend cheque to all Canadian households. As Canadians consider how best to spend their “green cheques,” businesses will be encouraged to adapt to alternative and renewable forms of energy. Sheila Murray, Toronto
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 20, 2011
SOLYNDRA
Clean-energy sector still producing jobs There’s a been a lot of fallout in the news about the failure of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which was backed with government-‐loan guarantees. Despite this bad news, the clean-‐ energy sector continues to grow and produce jobs at a promising clip. So, how do we stimulate jobs in clean tech without risking taxpayer money? Put a steadily rising fee on carbon-‐ based fuels, and private investors will flood the market with capital to start
and expand businesses in wind, solar and other emerging technologies. This will allow the marketplace to choose the winners and losers. Will energy costs go up because of the fee? Of course, and that’s why revenue from the fee should be returned to all households. It’s a job-‐creation program that also addresses climate change without increasing federal spending. That’s what we call a triple-‐win. Steve Valk, Atlanta
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 20, 2011
Stop Keystone Your editorial questions the moral equivalence between the recent Keystone XL Pipeline protests at the White House and the civil rights movement in the 1960s (Key To Prosperity – Sept. 17). It focuses on the promised prosperity the pipeline supposedly will deliver when it transports tar sand bitumen from Alberta to Texas. Among the protesters arrested at the White House was James Hansen, a Cheryl McNamara, Toronto
top NASA climatologist, who warns that continued tar sands development will tip us into runaway global warming. This will result in millions displaced or killed by rising sea water, extreme weather, viruses and drought. Recently nine Nobel Peace laureates, including the Dalai Lama, have urged U.S. President Barack Obama to stop the pipeline. If this isn’t a call to action to take a moral stand, I don’t know what is.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 MONITOR EDITORIAL
Make a carbon tax part of reform effort Douglas Holtz-‐Eakin, a conservative Republican, adviser to both presidents Bush and presidential candidate John McCain, believes the world's climate is changing and human activity could be to blame. But that's not what he emphasizes as he tours the country in tandem with environmentalists or the ambassador of Norway, a nation whose capital no longer can count on having enough snow for Nordic skiing. Instead, Holtz-‐Eakin talks primarily about the many other reasons why Congress should include a tax on carbon emissions as a component of a reform of the nation's absurdly complex tax code. Holtz-‐Eakin stopped by the Monitor to make his case last week, and it was convincing. This paper has, for more than two decades, viewed global warming as a profound threat, so we were eager to learn why Holtz-‐Eakin, an economist and former head of the Congressional Budget Office, was willing to stump the country to build support for a carbon tax. He was, he said, doing so in hopes of providing business with the certainty it needs to grow, invest and create jobs. And he was doing it for the sake of national security. The less the United States has to rely on other nations, including nations whose interests are hostile to
our own, for the energy that powers its economy, the more secure it will be. Holtz-‐Eakin is a realist. He knows the current political climate is not conducive to action on climate change -‐ or on anything else, we would add. But as one who has been both on top and in the political trenches, he sees an opportunity to act, and we think he's right. No one, save for tax lawyers, likes the nation's 71,684-‐page tax code, a monstrosity that's evolved under massive pressure from lobbyists. Reforming the tax code is one of the few things that could win bipartisan agreement, even in an election season. So far, no climate change bill has emerged from Congress without being burdened by additions and exclusions that doom it to fail. Tax reform legislation, by comparison, is far harder to swell with campaign paybacks, regional favors and other additives. It is a good vehicle, Holtz-‐ Eakin said, on which a clean, revenue neutral, uncertainty-‐ending tax to combat climate change could ride. We agree. Society can no longer afford to hide the true cost of burning a fossil fuel by passing it on to an often unwitting populace, whether that cost comes in
the form of air pollution, a negative impact on human health, harm to the environment or climate change. A carbon tax is a recognition that those costs are real and should be a component in economic decisions that include whether to invest in a coal-‐ fired power plant or a wind farm. Holtz-‐Eakin believes that to pass, a carbon tax would have to be revenue neutral. The money the tax raises should be offset by reductions in things like payroll tax, income tax and corporate tax rate. If some of the money is diverted to another purpose, even one so worthy as energy
conservation measures, he believes, it will fail. We hope he's wrong, because using some of the money to, say, subsidize the insulation of homes, would reduce carbon emissions even more, but we suspect he's right. The tax would have to be clean with revenue raised offset by revenue returned to taxpayers. A carbon tax would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, replace some environmental regulations with market forces, fuel investment in alternative energy and slow climate change. It should be included in any reform of the tax code.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 17, 2011
Carbon fee could be boon The fee and dividend plan proposed by John Reaves would go a long way toward solving our energy problems. By putting a predictable price on carbon, it encourages investment in clean energy. By promoting clean energy, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Best of all, since 100 percent of the funds collected are returned to the American
people on a per-‐capita basis, the plan puts spending money in the pockets of consumers. As Reaves aptly says, this is a plan that is supported by prominent citizens across the political spectrum. I’d love to see it get some traction in Congress. -‐-‐ Jean Seager, Coronado
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 16, 2011
Oceans face a serious threat, need attention Your note that Sen. Murkowski will co-‐chair a bipartisan Senate Oceans Caucus, with Sen. Begich participating, is a hopeful sign that Washington has noticed the serious threats facing our oceans. Evidence is mounting that warming, acidification from increased amounts of carbon dioxide absorbed by the seas, overfishing and agricultural and industrial pollution are stressing marine ecosystems everywhere, and the harmful effects are occurring faster than anticipated. Recently it was announced that rising ocean temperature is causing proliferation of Vibrio bacteria, which causes food poisoning, gastroenteritis, septicemia and cholera. Acidification
stresses most marine life, including the phytoplankton and zooplankton forming the base of the food chain. The bottom line -‐-‐ we must address these issues, including excess carbon dioxide levels. A fee on carbon from fossil fuels, with 100 percent of the money rebated directly to the public will spur development of alternative energy technologies. Even among those who deny that carbon dioxide is a problem, a majority support investment in alternative energy, so this revenue-‐neutral, market-‐driven approach to addressing the issue should be a no-‐brainer. -- Jim Thrall Anchorage
JOBS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 15, 2011
Fee on carbon will be game-changer Last week, President Barack Obama unveiled his proposal to create new jobs. I share the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board's concern that the president's powers are very limited. There is an excellent way to create new jobs without government spending, one that will also move America toward energy independence. A revenue-‐neutral fee on carbon-‐ based fuels will stimulate massive domestic investment in clean energy. A recent Brookings Institution report found that clean-‐tech jobs have grown at twice the rate of other jobs since 2004; they pay almost 20% more than the national average, and they are founded on manufacturing and exports. No other sector in our economy offers more potential for new employment. Major corporations and investment firms are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash today. If carbon fees shift only 10% of that money to clean
energy, we'll get a $100 billion injection into wind, solar and other renewables. All without government spending. We can't afford to lose more ground to China, which already controls 60% of solar panel manufacturing. A price on carbon will be a game-‐changer. What to do with the carbon fees? Return all of it to American families on an equal basis. It's fair, because the biggest emitters pay the most. Most American households actually will come out ahead. It's time for Congress to enact a revenue-‐neutral fee on carbon, not just to fight climate change but to provide Americans with the good, wealth-‐creating jobs we desperately need. Hans Noeldner Oregon
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
The jobs plan the president missed By John Reaves
President Barack Obama’s jobs plan offers a costly cushion with little hope for lasting change. Extending payroll tax cuts exacerbates underfunded Social Security. Carrying certain state jobs is not sustainable, and extending unemployment benefits likely postpones the inevitable. Limited investing in infrastructure and clean tech may create some new jobs in desirable sectors, but not enough. Regardless, the total cost is nearly $450 billion and Congress is in no mood to approve new spending. There is a plan, however, that requires no government investment and will create countless jobs while restructuring our economy in several beneficial ways. The plan the president missed would boost jobs across all sectors, nudge everyone to conserve and use energy more efficiently, and trigger a massive investment of private capital into new businesses that see opportunities. I am talking about a revenue-neutral carbon fee combined with a full dividend, or rebate, that is recycled to all households. Here is the plan: A steadily increasing carbon fee beginning at $15 per ton per
year would be assessed by the IRS at the source – the wellhead (e.g., oil), mine (e.g., coal) and port of entry – and placed in a dedicated trust fund. The cost would trickle down and affect choices consumers make. More importantly, it would send a strong, predictable price signal to the market and create vast opportunities for those who make cleaner products and conserve use of fossil fuels. Venture capital would flood into the market without government direction. It is hard to imagine any sector of our economy that would not find new opportunities and create new jobs. Moreover, investments in clean tech would lead to breakthroughs that further help us solve a handful of serious, intertwined issues (national security; economy; climate change; health; environmental degradation caused by securing and burning fossil fuels). To protect our imports and exports under the plan, if another country lacked a comparable carbon fee, the Department of Commerce would place a tariff for the difference on the import. That would create a “reverse domino” affect, encouraging other countries to collect the fee themselves, which would propel
them to cleaner energy. If an American business were to export a product to a country without an equivalent carbon fee, we would pay such business the difference in fees from the trust fund to stay competitive. We could find the world follows our clean lead. Here is one of the best parts of the plan: All of the money would be returned equally to all households as a dividend (one share for each adult (up to two) and one-half share for children (up to two) per household). About 60 percent to 70 percent of households would receive dividends that exceed or equal the fees paid. Thus, the plan is progressive. While there have been variations on the theme, such as a Republican proposed reduction of payroll taxes, payments to a broader range of affected people would be more fair and immensely popular. Payments could be made by monthly check, debited to bank accounts, payroll tax offset or credit to tax returns. We all agree on the benefit of switching to cleaner energy, whether to reduce greenhouse gases, breathe cleaner air, reduce premature deaths and asthma, reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase national security, avoid higherrisk oil and gas explorations, avoid grinding vast landscapes for highly Â
polluting tar sand oil, or to hedge against volatile oil prices as we venture past world peak oil production. We must also remain competitive with China, which is investing billions more than we are in the future of renewables. No doubt, the winner of the clean energy revolution will enjoy world prominence and power. What may seem remarkable to some is that there is bipartisan support for feeand-dividend because it would not create fiscal drag, money would stay out of government coffers, and government would not pick winners, as touted by President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz. The marketplace would decide the winners. Economists and businesses like the plan because it would provide a predictable rise in fees on which investment decisions can be based. Further, research has shown that a dollar invested in clean tech grows twice as many jobs as oil and gas. The benefits of moving away from fossil fuels are manifold. When people appreciate the scale of positive change that would result from fee-and-dividend, they will finally have real reason for hope. Reaves is an environmental lawyer and board member of the San Diegobased Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 11, 2011
Re: The pros and cons of the Keystone XL pipeline ("America's oil boom poses threat to our green future," Insight, Sept. 4) and "Clouds over U.S. solar" (Editorial, Sept. 5).
These words are attributed to Albert Einstein: "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." NASA's James Hansen and other climate scientists have concluded that to maintain a livable world for today's children and future generations, fossil fuel use must be phased down rapidly and unconventional fossil fuels such as Canada's tar sands must be left in the ground. To achieve these reductions, Hansen favors a market-‐ based carbon fee and dividend program. Placing a steadily rising fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels and
rebating all revenue to Americans in monthly "green checks" would drive investment to clean energy and energy efficiency, creating several times the number of jobs as the same level of investment in fossil fuel industries. Consumers could afford higher fossil energy costs during the transition, and technical improvements and scale-‐up would enable U.S. clean energy manufacturers to pull ahead of world competition. This is the kind of new thinking we urgently need. Dave Massen, San Francisco
Opponents of the proposed pipeline to take tarsands oil to the U.S. from Canada protest in front of the White House. (Aug. 20, 2011)
Civil disobedience goes green By Stephen Scharper “I normally respect the law . . . but I needed to get the message out. By getting arrested, that happened.” So commented Patricia Warwick, 68, who ventured down to the White House last month to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the U.S., a vast arterial skein that will pump the oil harvest of the Alberta tarsands across six U.S. states to refineries in Texas. She wound up in an non-air-conditioned paddy wagon. Warwick joined more than 1,250 Americans and Canadians, ranging from students and grandmothers to celebrities such as Darryl Hannah and Margot Kidder, and eminent scholars, such as James Hansen
of NASA, Bill McKibben of Middlebury College and No Logo author Naomi Klein, who were led away from the White House gates in handcuffs over a two-week demonstration. Their action represents one of the largest environmental acts of civil disobedience of the new millennium. Those arrested were supported in spirit by nine Nobel Peace Prize recipients, including the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, the Nobel laureates urge him to reject the proposed pipeline, saying his decision offers “a critical moment” to make good on his pledge to create a clean energy economy. Another Nobel winner, former U.S. vicepresident Al Gore, also signalled his support for the protestors.
“This pipeline would be an enormous mistake,” Gore tweeted to more than two million followers. “The answer to our climate, energy and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels — instead, we must continue to press for much more rapid development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and cuts in the pollution that causes global warming.” The Obama administration has said it will decide by the end of the year whether to permit the pipeline. In Canada, many are also urging Obama to sever the tarsands supply line. More than 450 have committed to attend a protest scheduled for Parliament Hill on Sept. 26 (ottawaaction.ca), which will also involve acts of civil disobedience and action bringing together students, labour unions, aboriginal groups, physicians and social justice organizations from across Canada. While there is a tendency to label such protestors as anarchists, professional activists or social deviants, marginal to the social and economic mainstream, such a characterization is inaccurate. These protestors are not members of a malcontented rabble, but rather represent an engaged and vital part of our democracies, as research on social movements suggests. Social theorist Charles Tilly, for example, one of the world’s foremost scholars of social movements, spoke of such protests as forming “repertoires of contention.” He traced their beginning to Great Britain in the early 1800s, as the economic and political upheaval of the Industrial Revolution was gathering steam. Unlike the 1789 mob that stormed the Bastille, these social movements, according to Tilly, are more strategic campaigns than mob-rule, and are a direct result of democratization. In other words, they are the logical result of a democracy, as people
deepen a sense of their rights and strategically pressure governments to protect and foster those rights. The pipeline protestors thus represent not a problem for, but a product of, our democratic political system, and as such have to be taken seriously and treated respectfully. As British historian E.P. Thompson pointed out, such social movements represent a “moral economy,” whereby ethical behaviour is articulated by a broader set of social values than simply just following the law. American abolitionist Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay, On Civil Disobedience, represented a moral lighthouse for Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom espoused civil disobedience when confronted with unjust laws. These protestors are heirs to this tradition. Significantly, at the Nuremburg trials following World War II, Nazi officials were hanged for not committing civil disobedience. Their oft-repeated defence that they were simply “following orders” was not enough to save them from the gallows. Their defence was inadequate for the new “moral economy” of a postHolocaust world. These protesters are pointing us to a new “moral economy” concerning the Earth itself. Their actions suggest our present economy, based on ecologically rapacious oil and gas extraction, is ultimately ecologically unsustainable and ethically unacceptable. In future years, when “geocide” is deemed a crime, these protestors may well be remembered not as criminals, but as champions of a life-filled world. Stephen Bede Scharper teaches environmental studies at the University of Toronto.
Â
Friday, Sept. 9, 2011
Choosing opportunity over denial By David Folland Despite ever mounting evidence to the contrary, many of our citizens and politicians continue to deny the science of climate change. Almost 98 percent of the climate scientists of the world agree that the earth is warming and human-produced greenhouse gasses are the major cause. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to the increase in greenhouse gases. Unfortunately denial of science by politicians can be dangerous, even deadly. In 2000 South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that the HIV virus caused AIDS. His administration banned the use of retroviral drugs in public state hospitals. Sadly an estimated 330,000 people died from AIDS because of his policy of denial. How many people are going to be injured or die before our politicians respond emphatically to the science documenting climate change? Climate scientists have been saying that a warming planet will cause hurricanes to be more severe and hold more water. Indeed, Hurricane Irene was so destructive primarily because of the immense amount of water she dumped, not the storm surge or the high winds. Fortunately some politicians are showing the courage to take a positive stand on the environment. Jon Huntsman has distinguished himself from the other Republican candidates by saying "science should be driving our discussions on climate change." Many people and organizations are moving forward and reducing their use of fossil fuels. The LDS Church has been a
leader in construction of environmentally friendly buildings. The Church History Library and many new LDS chapels carry the prestigious LEED Silver designation. The LDS Conference Center has a living roof. Salt Lake City has developed mass transit, improved energy efficiency and developed renewable energy sources. Indeed, the list of energy-saving actions by businesses, local governments, faith groups and individuals is long. All of these developments, however, are only a trickle in what needs to become a river of change if we are to have any hope of reducing global warming. One important initiative that would reduce fossil fuel use is for the federal government to place a fee on carbon at the source of coal, oil and natural gas. Pricing carbon was recommended in a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "America's Climate Choices." The fee would be increased yearly on a predictable basis. Revenue from the carbon fee would be returned to the American people as a dividend to offset the increased cost of fossil fuels. Citizens would be more motivated to use less fossil fuel. The clear and predictable price on carbon would also stimulate tremendous development in the clean economy, a sector that has far greater potential than one based on fossil fuels. The Brookings Institute recently reported that this clean economy sector has many advantages. Among these advantages are 20 percent higher wages, more jobs for those with just a high school diploma and more exports. Brookings reports that at this time China, Germany, Great Britain and Japan
are leading the United States in developing the green economy. Will the U.S. enjoy the fruits of new, clean technology as these other countries have? Or, will our economy continue to decline as we cling to last century's technology? After Brigham Young had settled in the Salt Lake Valley he quipped, "we went West willingly — because we had to." It would be
in our and future generations' best interest to support laws that motivate us to decrease fossil fuel use willingly, rather than waiting until we have to. David Folland, MD, is a retired pediatrician and volunteer with the Salt Lake City chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Sept. 9, 2011
Carbon dioxide traps gas like so many blankets Editor, Times-‐Dispatch: I would like to clear up a few misconceptions presented by Tom Harris and Martin Mangino in their responses to your recent editorial "The Mann Act." The hockey stick-‐ shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been duplicated by many international scientists using different types of data (tree rings, ice cores, corals, ocean and lake sediments) and different methodologies. To question Mann's research is to question dozens of studies by other well-‐respected scientists. Scientists understand that humans are overloading Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide, a heat-‐trapping gas that builds up like so many blankets, raising the planet's temperature. These conclusions are the result of thousands of published studies. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, formed by Abraham Lincoln to advise Congress, states that certain scientific theories achieve the status of settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of
this warming is very likely due to human activities. All major science academies hold a similar position. Contrary to Harris' claim, these organizations do in fact ask their members for input because these position statements represent tens of thousands of members' reputations. Others agree. Military intelligence experts warn that climate crises could topple governments, embolden terrorists and destabilize regions. Health officials say climate change could be the biggest global threat of the 21st century. The property/casualty insurance industry lists climate change as its greatest risk. For our health, our national security and our economic competitiveness, we need to curb our fossil fuel addiction. Otherwise, we'll wind up clients of the Chinese, paying top dollar for renewable technologies that we should have invented ourselves. Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Studies/Meteorologist, Suffolk County Community College. Selden, NY. \
“This article originally appeared in the Sept 2011 issue of Monday Developments Magazine, www.mondaydevelopments.org, published by InterAction, the alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who focus on disaster relief and sustainable development around the world.”
What About Democracy and Governance Here at Home? Sam Daley-Harris
When most people read a Monday Developments article about “democracy and governance” they are more likely to think about institution building in the global South, the Arab Spring, or Iraqi voters leaving polling places with ink-stained fingers.
But what about democracy and civic engagement here at home? How are we doing on that front and why do the answers to those questions matter so much?
Think about an issue that your institution has taken on. Perhaps it’s funding for child health or basic education, or agriculture. Can you imagine dozens of members of Congress calling to get your input on those issues? Can you imagine dozens of editorial writers calling to get your thoughts on an editorial they are writing about why humanitarian foreign assistance programs are so vital? Can you imagine this happening?
Of course you can’t. But whether you can imagine it or not, I say that it is not an impossible dream because I’ve seen some of these things. My basic proposition is this: Just as there are people in the world who are hungry for food and desperate to get an education for themselves or their children, Americans are hungry to have more meaning in their lives—to live lives that truly matter. I’d also venture to say that all Americans want this, but only a small number are awake to this desire. The good news is that many of those who know they want to make a difference in the world are your own donors. They truly would like to light up their members of Congress and inspire their local media on the issues that your organization cares about.
But, and here’s the rub, citizens are thwarted by two major impediments: 1) feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy about making a difference as an advocate and 2) an inability to find a structure of support that will help them through their despair and truly empower them to make a difference; a structure of support that can coach them through transformations like these: from “I don’t make a difference” to “I do make a difference” from “I can’t fight city hall” to “I am city hall”.
I know this still sounds far-fetched so let me get to where you come in. If your organization has 300 US-based staff, or 100 or even 25, could you see designating just one of those staff to the task of identifying and empowering those within your donor base who want to go deep with their democracy and make an even bigger difference with their money and their voice? You must understand, however, I am not talking about a staff member who can help a cadre of stakeholders know the name of their member of Congress, how a bill becomes law, or what e-mail message to send to Congress. It’s a much deeper lesson plan than that. I am talking about an inquiry that is more closely related to human development seminars or the most profound staff retreat you’ve ever experienced. I am talking about volunteers having an interaction with your organization that will allow them to get in touch with their life’s purpose and a personal commitment to moving toward it.
Here are some of the components of the structure of support that gives it its depth. This structure for grassroots engagement includes a commitment to: •
Breakthroughs: For a citizen to go from not knowing the name of their member of Congress to having a deep, trusting relationship with them requires a series of breakthroughs—it requires moving out of your comfort zone. That is essentially the definition of a breakthrough, seeing something that seems difficult or impossible, having some discomfort in taking it on, and then, with coaching and support, going through that comfort zone to experience the joy and accomplishment on the other side. These breakthroughs can happen with a
member of Congress, with an editorial writer, with other leaders in the community, and with oneself. •
Engaging others: Engaging other community members in being empowered volunteers is part of the structure of support. If I invite a friend to a meeting there is always the fear that they will say no or that they will come and see this as a useless activity. When volunteers become senior to that fear, when the commitment to the purpose and vision is greater than the fear of rejection, then big things can happen.
•
Building relationships: When an op-ed is selected for publication it has less to do with the quality of the op-ed and more to do with the relationship one has developed with the op-ed editor. Of course timing and quality are important, but I would rather have 10 people who have great, trusted relationships with op-ed editors pitch a good op-ed rather than send a great op-ed to 10 editors with whom there is no relationship. So the commitment is not so much to having an editorial writer or member of Congress say yes to every request, but to building a deep, trusting relationship. Hearing “no” from a member of Congress early on should be seen as just one step along the path to building a great relationship over time.
•
Being vulnerable: Showing a moving video or reading convincingly an excerpt from an emotional article to a member of Congress is more important than just sharing information. The goal is to tap into their humanity and create a deeply memorable moment. But people shy away from being vulnerable, especially with those in positions of power. However, a willingness to be vulnerable is essential to having breakthroughs, engaging others, building powerful relationships, and, ultimately, success.
Let me share a few specifics about this structure of support: •
You must have someone on the road speaking powerfully to groups in order to identify volunteers who want to take on this level of commitment and personal growth.
•
The volunteer groups would have at least two meetings a month. One would be a national conference call committed to inspiration and empowerment with guest speakers, a designated action for the month, an accompanying action sheet, and an opportunity to practice being articulate. The other session is focused on planning meetings with members of Congress, calls to editorial writers, and outreach meetings to expand the local group.
•
The grassroots advocates would receive packets to take to editorial writers and other written materials—both informational and inspirational.
Of course this is just a glimpse of what is required for having breakthroughs with Congress and the media. I began using these strategies in the early 1980s. After the volunteers generated 90 editorials in 1986 in a successful campaign to triple the Child Survival Fund from $25 million to $75 million, UNICEF Executive Director Jim Grant sent a hand-written note saying: “I thank you in my mind weekly, if not more often, for what you and your colleagues are accomplishing—but I thought I should do it at least once this year in writing.” So I ask again: What if one percent of your members were seriously engaged in making the case for international development to their members of Congress, the media and thought leaders in their communities? What if they went far beyond mouse-click advocacy and committed themselves to creating champions in Congress and the local media for the end of poverty and your institution created a profound structure of support to help make that happen? What could result from such actions? Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out? Sam Daley-Harris is founder of RESULTS and of the Microcredit Summit Campaign and will launch the Center for Citizen Empowerment and Transformation in 2012. samdharris@microcreditsummit.org
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011
The green economy David Brooks’ column “Where the jobs aren’t” (Opinion, Sept. 8), dismissing the job potential of the green economy, ignores a Brookings Institution study that found the clean-tech sector to be one of the most promising areas for job growth. Not only was this sector producing jobs at twice the pace of the overall economy over the past seven years, those jobs pay 20 percent more than the national average.
Brooks is right that the government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in clean energy. Instead, the marketplace should determine which technologies emerge on top. We can do that by placing a steadily rising fee on carbonbased fuels. Once there’s a clear price signal on carbon, private investors will flock to clean energy. --Marshall Saunders, Coronado