Long-term Solutions to Accelerated Global Warming

At right, below "What is a Wedge?," are links to three proposed solutions to our climate emergency, the top being my low-tech and conservation-oriented plan, the next being a tech-heavy plan of a prominent scientist/politician, and the third being the inept Obama Energy Plan. If technology-dependent plans are adopted, by the time it becomes painfully obvious that they won't work, that will be too late. I feel that solutions relying heavily on technology will allow our excessively consumptive ways to carry on, and therefore are doomed to failure because we cannot continue forever on a path of endless growth on a finite planet. Most of the posts on this site explain my ideas in further detail. I think the best solution is right here: Relocalization, not Militarization.

For New Visitors to this Blog
As this is a blog that displays posts reverse-chronologically, if you are interested in starting with my first post, see the Blog Archive at right and start with Climate Change Basics. If you wish to make a comment that disagrees with the causes, or trivializes the severity, of accelerated global warming, then this is not the cyber site for you. Such comments will not be posted. To post your actions, click here.


23 May 2009

Sample letter

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is trying to get a sweeping global warming package (H.R. 2454) out of committee this week. And there are a number of flaws, but the most glaring is the use of cap-and-trade. Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel at CarbonFees.org offer a far superior approach.

I cannot stress enough that cap-and-trade is the equivalent of a sub-prime "fix" to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a deeply flawed market-based scheme. If you'd really like to understand this, please read this paper (PDF) from Laurie and Allan.

On their website, you can also find this sample letter:

Subject: Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon-Fees-with-100%-Rebate

Dear Representative:

To date there has been a lot of publicity about the tragedies that can result if climate change is not addressed promptly by a rapid transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy. However, there has been a lot less debate and very little public education on the alternatives for getting our economy to make this transition. Specifically, there has been little news and little debate on the choice between Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon-Fees-With-100%-Rebate.

While many politicians are advocating Cap-and-Trade, I am asking you to become educated about the alternative of Carbon-Fees-With-100% Rebate. Please visit www.carbonfees.org to learn more about the potential for this alternative market mechanism to create the incentives necessary to rapidly transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. In addition, I also ask that you obtain expert input from economists and scientists as well as educating the public about both the urgency of the problem and the factors to consider in making this important choice.
Thank you for your consideration.


And here is an important excerpt from Laurie and Allan's paper sited above:

Given the huge momentum that cap-and-trade has developed, it is critical for every concerned citizen who believes this decision deserves additional scrutiny to communicate with their elected representatives, friends, neighbors and colleagues. . . In addition, some surveys have indicated that many people are afraid of carbon taxes or fees, even with rebates. Our belief is that the issues of urgency, effectiveness, and relative cost to consumers of cap-and-trade v carbon fees with 100% rebate have not been effectively explained to the public. We encourage you to help your friends, families, neighbors and colleagues understand these issues as the most pressing ones we face, even at this time of economic crisis.

Conclusion
While the recent debate on how to rescue the economy has tended to overshadow the debate on climate change, as many people have noted, the economic crisis has provided an opportunity. It has made it clear that massive investments must be made to stimulate the economy. The question is how to make those decisions wisely. Carbon fees with 100% rebate has the advantages of costing the government very little, returning all proceeds equally to everyone to fund continued spending on energy, and creating huge incentives for climate-saving changes. The fact that little government spending would be needed to scale-up clean energy technology would leave more room for any stimulus package to focus on the other necessary measures, such as funding for green-jobs training and a new comprehensive system of efficient transmission lines.


So, because I sent the above sample letter a month ago, and to show my awareness of the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454), here is the letter I'm sending to my representative.

Dear Representative:

As the likelihood of catastrophic climate change increases with almost every new climate science study released, prompt rapid transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy is critical. One excellent part of the solution that has garnered very little public attention is Carbon-Fees-With-100%-Rebate. This approach has three very significant advantages: costing the government very little; returning all proceeds equally to everyone to fund continued spending on energy; and creating huge incentives for climate-saving changes.

While Congressmen Waxman and Markey (and many others) are advocating Cap-and-Trade, I am asking you once again to become educated about the alternative of Carbon-Fees-With-100% Rebate. Please visit www.carbonfees.org to learn more about the potential for this alternative market mechanism to create the incentives necessary to rapidly transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. Specifically, read their 17-page Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon Fees discussion paper. In addition, I again ask that you obtain expert input from economists and scientists as well as educating the public about both the urgency of the problem and the factors to consider in making this critical choice. I hope you will then begin urging your fellow Congresspersons to support Carbon-Fees-With-100% Rebate.

Thank you for your consideration.

22 May 2009

More Grim Predictions

This from Climate Ark:

Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology forecast that global warming's effects this century could be twice as extreme as estimated just six years ago. They found that Earth's median surface temperature could rise 9.3 degrees F (5.2 degrees C) by 2100 compared to a 2003 study that projected a median temperature increase of 4.3 degrees F (2.4 degrees C). The new study, published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, said the difference was due to improved economic modeling and data. The paper calls for "rapid and massive action".

I'm searching for a metaphor to which people can relate. If space aliens were slowly filling our atmosphere with a poison, wouldn't the world "leaders" throw everything we have at them?

Or how about this one: If the US was involved in World War III, and the nation needed everyone to conserve all resources, stop unnecessary traveling, and focus on growing as much of their own food as possible, wouldn't you want to do that? To prevent the destruction of our country?

Still not quite right, and the reason is clear: those scenarios present threats from others. I think it is safe to say that most people don't see capitalism, the endless growth economy, and big corporations as "others." I think most folks generally feel all this is necessary to their way of life. That is why I've said before we need to redefine ourselves and our culture.

Maybe I'll return to the psychopathic murderer metaphor, but this time, the murderer is your best friend, someone you trust completely. So Western industrial civilization is your best friend, and he's got a gun, which is CO2 emissions, and he's running around shooting anyone he sees. Do you try to talk him out of it (and get shot in the process) or do you do whatever it takes to knock the gun out of his hands?

Hmmm, that still does not quite capture the situation. It portrays the urgency well enough, but it is maybe too immediate. And it requires a rather natural response. Plus, the threat is only to people, not everything else we need to survive. And, he's only one person. Not a great metaphor, really.

We have all become so enculturated that we don't know how to respond. We don't have a culture that demands genuine democracy with threats of revolution. But that is what we need. Of course we need a few thousand people writing letters and making movies and posting to blogs and raising awareness, but at some point VERY soon, we need to take it up a few zillion notches and start general work stoppages, start taking land away from corporate polluters by use of sheer numbers (let them send ten thousand policemen, we will have 500,000 squatters willing to risk all to save our home).

Too radical for you? Then maybe you could join in on the awareness-raising. Maybe only 3 million Americans could demand sane policies that would lead us toward the kind of paradigm shift we so desperately need. Maybe we need 10 million, who knows, but I'm back to my original phrase: we don't know until we try.

I hope to hear from more of you that you want to make action for climate justice a regular part of your life. It really is more urgent than we've been lead to believe. And there is still a sliver of a chance that it isn't too late.

But inaction will guarantee the death of most life on this planet.

Oh, and if you think of an appropriate metaphor, let me know please!

01 May 2009

Boycott Palm Oil

I've known for some time that palm oil plantations were a significant cause of tropical deforestation, so I've been personally avoiding purchasing any product that mentions palm oil on the label (yes, even Newman's Organic chocolate goodies). But after reading an article about the murder of orangutans as a part of the clearing of forests to make room for these plantations, and then seeing these two articles today, I decided to make a public plea: please do not buy any product containing palm oil.

As the second article makes clear, palm oil is present in vast numbers of products and often labeled only as "vegetable oil," in the U.K. at least. I find it hard to believe that the US has stronger labeling laws of any sort than the EU, but the labels I read here usually list the possible suspects in parentheses, e.g. "vegetable oil (soy and/or cottonseed and/or palm)." But now I think it might be wise to just avoid all products that don't say what kind of vegetable oil.

I don't normally ask people to make lifestyle changes, but I can see no morally valid reason for not caring about the fate of our forests, the most diverse communities on the planet, and critical entities in preventing runaway global warming. For today, that is all I can say.