Voting and Environmentalism

Last week, EcoAction was tabling in Red Square with a list of the candidates that the Sierra Club has endorsed for the upcoming midterm elections. Claire and I were “tabling” on Friday afternoon—we were actually table-less, but we managed to commandeer a bench. Because not too many students stopped to see the list, I thought I would post it here so that if you missed us last week, you can still check out the endorsements.

The overwhelming majority of the candidates are Democrats: for the House races, they are all Democrats, and for the Senate races the only exceptions are Charlie Crist (I-FL) and Tom Clemens (G-SC). The Sierra Club did not endorse any Republicans. Obviously, since the District has no seats in Congress, this list is really only relevant if you’re registered elsewhere and you have an absentee ballot.

BP oil spill: let us break it down for you

Image from The Rachel Maddow Show Flickr

Over 50 days ago, on April 20th, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (a mobile offshore drilling unit designed to drill underwater wells for oil extraction) exploded due to a high pressure in the well, leading to what experts now think may be one of the largest oil spills in history.

With news reports every day updating citizens on new estimates of oil spilled, who's blaming who, which politician is offering his two-cents, which celebrity is offering his new technology, why they went wrong, and who is in trouble, it can be near impossible to figure out what's happening.

Over the next few days, I'll be writing some posts about:

1) What is the BP oil spill?  What's been done?  Who are the players?  Who is affected?

2) What are the business implications?  What are the political implications?  And, most importantly perhaps, how are these intertwined?

3) What's going to happen and how can we help?

I'll split it out over a few days so it's not like reading a novel but all we can say with certainty is that this event could be a major turning point - but of what?  (We don't quite know... a turning point for big corporations?  For small business?  For President Obama?)

Even more than a month later, there's quite a bit of conjecture, so, as always, your feedback is appreciated.

From Personal to Social Responsibility on Food with Marion Nestle

If Dr. Marion Nestle (pronounced aptly like the verb meaning "to nurture" as opposed to the name of the food company) could teach the American public one thing, it might be that larger portions equal more calories. Alas, that is not as easy as it sounds.

Being healthy, Dr. Nestle, the author of Food Politics (which Kristin reviewed earlier) and What to Eat who spoke on campus yesterday for the Ellen Catherine Gstalder Memorial Lecture, explains, isn't difficult to do. In reality, it's quite straightforward: Eat less, move more, eat more fruits and vegetables, don't eat junk food, and enjoy your food. However, with the barrage of corporate messaging we see today about the health miracles performed by everything from your peanut butter hyped up on omega 3s to your Immunity Rice Krispies, a trip around the supermarket can become a mix of cognitive dissonance and visual overload.

How, though, did we get to be where we are today?
Dr. Nestle spent most of her early career focusing specifically on nutrition; however, she has with time realized that we need a more systematic or holistic approach to understanding our food, one uniting agriculture, food, nutrition, and public health (obesity, hunger, food safety).

She traces back the issue of obesity to the early 1980s, noting four major changes that have influenced the American diet. First is agricultural policy. In the 1970s, farm policy shifted; rather than paying farmers not to grow, the government began paying them to grow as much as possible. Something had to be done with all of that excess food, right?

Second was the wave of deregulation that came with the Reagan administration. With this wave came an increased marketing to children from corporations. This sector grew from $4.2 billion in 1980 to $40 billion in 2010. Granted, not all of this is food-based, but just turn on Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel and count how many sugary snacks or breakfast cereals you see in the commercials. It's not hard to see.

The third factor cited is an increase in women working outside the home. Dr. Nestle, however, notes that this gets overemphasized too much because the trend had already been started in the 1960s, decades before the obesity epidemic hit.

Last but not least was the shareholder value movement. In 1981 Jack Welch of GE changed the dynamic of Wall Street, pushing for immediate return rather than consistent return over time. Food companies, then, had to sell a lot more in order to grow.

Over that same span of time, the price of fruits and vegetables has seen a steady increase (relative to inflation), and the prices of beer, butter, and soda have all fallen drastically. Not the formula for a healthy public, is it?

The information we are being fed along with the food has changed, too. Health claims on food were not possible before 1990, when the Nutrition Labeling Act was passed. Food companies, consequently, could say whatever they wanted to on their products regardless of the existence or nonexistence of scientific evidence to back up their claims. This has been upheld by courts out of a gross corruption of the First Amendment. Dr. Nestle aptly noted that when she was in school, she learned that the founding fathers included this in the Bill of Rights to protect the freedom of religious and political speech, not the freedom of corporations to lie to us about their products.

There is, however, some hope in the future. Dr. Nestle was very optimistic about Michelle Obama's commitment to this issue with her Let's Move campaign. Moreover, the health care legislation included an amendment mandating that all chain restaurants release nutritional information on their menus.

What does she recommend that we do, both as consumers and as citizens?

As a consumer (i.e. personal responsibility), you can buy food, not "products," you can make your own food or even grow your own food, and you can teach your children about where food comes from.

One of the best pieces of advice I can personally give about making sure that what you are eating is actually "food" is to look at the ingredient list. If you were given all of those items separately, could you put it back together? Could you take those monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, natural and artificial flavors, xanthum gum, dyes for every color of the rainbow, and make food out of it? Probably not. Stick to what you know and can pronounce.

Also, your food should be rich in color, naturally occurring color that is. I have always attempted to make my plate look as attractive as possible and have always gotten comments from friends about how colorful and crafted my salads look. Just look at the photo above of Marion Nestle from her Food Politics blog and try to tell me that the array of yellow, red, and orange does not catch your eye.

As a citizen, moreover, we must advocate for more nutritious school lunches, more access to sustainable food, and regulations on marketing lies and campaign financing.

In the words of Michelle Obama, then, LET'S MOVE!

Locating the Environment in Political Philosophies

Professor Patrick Deneen wrote an opinion piece in yesterday's edition of The Hoya about the environmental movement's position within political philosophy. I think that it is an interesting and valuable read for its attempt to relocate respect for nature in the greater scheme of conservative philosophy; however, I feel that I need to address a lot of the overstatements that riddle the piece as well. Overall, however, I think that a debate about our role as both citizens and consumers comes out of this piece, and it is one that is central to any form of positive social reform.

First of all, I feel that the opening is too much of an overstatement. He claims that there is a "near-universal embrace" of environmentalism by today's youth. If there is, that's news to me; I must have missed the memo. Few people, of any generation, will actively speak out against the environment--unless you are Jim Inhofe, the self-proclaimed worst enemy of the environment, or one of his supporters. Wearing a "save the planet" sticker does not make you an environmentalist. Our generation might preach well on the environment, but practicing well--that's a different story.

Moving on, I feel that Deneen does raise the interesting point of personal accountability; however, at times, it feels a bit too much like an "Al Gore lives in a big house" style jab, if you know what I mean. Increased classroom technology can save paper although, at the same time, it uses energy. However, it helps to foment discussion and to promote knowledge--creating informed, well-rounded, reflective, engaged CITIZENS and individuals is the very purpose of a liberal arts education. And these citizens are the ones who make change.

However, I do feel, at times, that there is a tendency to ignore individual responsibility when advocating for corporate responsibility. One of my biggest pet peeves is environmentalists who smoke cigarettes. When you fight against the air pollution caused by the coal plant, why are you polluting the air yourself? And funding an industry that has no respect for your life? And doubtfully much for the environment either? We must be both good citizens and good consumers; they must exist together.

I disagree, however, with the issue of terminology that Deneen presents as the center of his argument. The word "nature" is a more distancing word, in my opinion, than the "environment." "Nature," as the word is commonly used, evokes the images of pretty postcards from national parks or tropical rainforests. The "nature," whether or not it should, implies an existence outside of the urban and suburban worlds. Even though the word "environment" can have the same pitfalls, at the very least, it can connote the entirety of one's surroundings. The air YOU breathe and the water YOU drink is part of your environment.

Moreover, it is not necessarily a "return to nature" that is being advocated in environmentalist discourse, but rather an "evolution with" or "growth with" nature. The problems with modern technology exist in the reliance on conflict minerals for their creation and the questionable issue of their disposal. Likewise, the electronics industry has based itself around the idea of planned obsolescence, making our iPods and laptops outdated by the time we buy them. Even though technology is the attempt to live beyond nature, we can still go beyond our natural abilities without destroying the environment to the extent that we do now.

It is true, as he notes, that early Progressive Movement often inadvertently caused environmental detriment in its aim at social liberation--just think of dams for a minute. Moreover, moving out of the scope of the US alone, just as there is no inherent respect for the environment in either socialism or capitalism. However, modern progressivism (and I will use the term "progressive" over the term "liberal") favors green jobs as a way to elevate labor by working with nature, not against it, and supports forms of energy that do not damage the health and well-being of the populace. You can harness the renewable sources of wind and sunlight rather than the nonrenewable sources of coal and oil.

However, Deneen is correct in that some elements of the environmental agenda do have firm roots in conservative principles. Take, for example, the desire to reinvigorate family farms, a system based on individual communities rather than on government-subsidized Big Ag. Growing your own food or using solar panels to get yourself off the grid are other great examples of an environmental ethos linked to a libertarian, individualist mindset. (Joel Salatin, discussed in an earlier blog post, is a self-described libertarian, for instance.) The intimate relationship between the GOP and Big Business has sadly corrupted these fundamental principles, which will hopefully blossom again.

Furthermore, I have always thought that the environmental agenda should not be ignored by those who claim to have a "pro-life" view of the world. The respect for the life of both humans and animals, wherever they are, lies at the core of the environmentalist ethos. If one purports to be "pro-life," how can one support mountaintop coal removal, which damages and shortens lives, or GMO foods that pose unknown threats to human life while under the guise of prosperity?

Ultimately, what one should take out of this is that leading a better future by working with (not over or against) the environment should not be a blindly partisan issue; however, as is the case with anything in this country, it inevitably will be.

Obama Has Decided to go to Copenhagen! - What does this mean for US?

On our last day of classes, President Obama will be making a speech at Copenhagen.

So what? What is the significance of Copenhagen? Heard different rumors about it? I'll try to answer some questions which I think are relevant...

And if I didn't get some of your questions? Come to EcoAction's Danishes for Copenhagen study break on Friday, December 11th from 11am - noon in ICC 203.



What is Copenhagen?
Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark. (Haha, sorry. Couldn't resist!)

I've heard a lot about some conference in Copenhagen that's supposed to be a big deal. What's up with that?
The United Nations is hosting the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. It's a meeting of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) members. It's also called the Earth Summit. It is a meeting where the world, essentially, can come to talk about the effects on climate change and to create actions to diminish these effects.

When is it being held?
It's to be held from December 7th through December 18th.

What does it have to do with COP 15?
Although Copenhagen starts with the letters "COP," it does not have to do with the city name. COP stands for Conference of the Parties. The meeting in Copenhagen is the 15th annual meeting.

What are its predecessors?
It was preceded by the famous Kyoto Protocol (COP 3 - 1997). This is probably one of the most famous Earth Summits because it created a legally binding agreement for signatories to reduce their emissions from 6-8% of 1990 levels between 2008-2012. It's been somewhat successful; responsible for a huge amount of decreased carbon emissions and, undoubtedly, the increase of clean energy throughout much of Europe. However, it was also notable for the huge failure of the United States to ratify this treaty. (Technically, the US signed it, but it was never sent to Senate for ratification, making their signature worthless.)
The other ones were located in Berlin (COP 1); Geneva (COP 2); Buenos Aires (COP 4); Bonn, Germany (COP 5); the Hague (COP 6); Marrakech, Morocco (COP 7); New Delhi (COP 8); Milan (COP 9); Buenos Aires (COP 10); Montreal (COP 11); Nairobi, Kenya (COP 12); Bali, Indonesia (COP 13); and Poznan, Poland (COP 14).

Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
A lot of reasons, which can't really be pinpointed. There was the fear of being held responsible of our own action (gee... what a concept!) and how other countries would implement this. Additionally, there were some issues with the Kyoto Protocol that the Senate didn't really feel comfortable with, such as the iffy timetables. Also, they wanted to be sure that other countries, at the time China, would be held to as high a standard as the US.

So if it's an annual event, why is it such a big deal this year?
Because the US and China, who have recently been in somewhat serious talks regarding carbon emissions - something which has never happened before, are being pressured to take a stand on climate change. There's a huge hope that all the major countries in the world, the ones that actually contribute the most to carbon emissions (i.e. the US).
Additionally, in Bali (COP 13), the participating nations decided to finalize their next binding agreement in two years - for COP 15. It's important now especially because 2012 is rapidly approaching. (The time when Kyoto expires.)

What about the cap-and-trade agreement? Does this have any effect on it?
Yes and no. The agreements decided upon at these COP meetings are a total agreement. Therefore, if by some miracle the Senate passed the Kerry-Boxer bill, then it would be in concurrence with whatever is agreed upon at Copenhagen. It was the original hope of the administration that they would be done with cap-and-trade before Copenhagen, so the US could show up at COP 15 and not be so embarrassed about their state of affairs and have something to show for it - i.e. well, we basically screwed up Kyoto- but we have been able to rein ourselves in on our own. However, the current healthcare debate has pushed cap-and-trade to the side for now.

How does cap-and-trade even work?
Okay, not really directly related to Copenhagen, but I know there are people confused about it, especially with all the propaganda that's been floating around lately. Cap-and-trade is a policy plan which prices carbon emissions and puts them on the trading market. It is pretty simple.
So say there are 10 million units of carbon. Each company would get a certain amount and be able to sell their surplus in the open market. If a company was going to emit more carbon, it would have to buy more carbon. Ultimately, the hope would be that the supply of the carbon would decrease and therefore total carbon emissions would decrease.

Why is it so controversial?
The government's role is super important. The government must decide how many units of carbon emissions each company gets and then must buy back the carbon emission allowances from the open market, ultimately decreasing total emissions.
FROM A CONSERVATIVE POV
Conservative members claim 1) that this doesn't work and 2) that it will be expensive - and essentially a tax. To rebut that, I say that as anyone who has taken a basic economics class knows, it will work if implemented correctly. Furthermore, as someone who has worked at a brokerage firm, I can confidently say that carbon emissions are ALREADY trading on the open market, though more popular in other countries, and companies have been making buckets of money off of them. (Yes, I'm very much MSB.) Number 2, yes, it will be expensive. And I don't really think there's any way to get around that. You have to consider the alternatives (anyone who has taken basic economics or finance, again, knows these as opportunity costs). What's the cost of inaction? What's the cost of a Katrina 2.0? What's the cost of waiting a few more years with a couple million more people clamoring for the same limited resources in addition to the monstrous populations of both India and China who want to consume as much as Americans do?
FROM A LIBERAL POV
Liberal members claim that 1) it's not the best solution and 2) it doesn't go far enough. There have been other solutions floating around the blogosphere, such as a flat carbon tax, which would be straightforward and easy-to-understand, but difficult to pass. There was also another idea floating around called cap-and-dividend, which I think may have been mentioned on this blog but never really discussed. Cap-and-dividend essentially caps carbon emissions, much like in cap-and trade. So every company would get a certain amount of carbon credits, but essentially the public would own the carbon credits, versus the government like in cap-and-trade. Therefore, whenever a company buys carbon credits, the money would be distributed equally to the public (i.e. a dividend).
FROM MY POV
I believe that it's going to be vastly difficult for any Senate to pass any sort of act on climate control, especially with this economy. Mostly, people are fearful of the inconvenience it will cause to them. I say that it's in fact necessary for something to be done. I think that cap-and-trade will pass much easier than cap-and-dividend. Seeing where the Kerry-Boxer bill is and where Waxman-Markey was, that isn't saying much. I think we have to accept that cap-and-dividend is way too difficult for people to understand right now - and therefore won't be passed. (Though Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) wrote a cap-and-dividend bill earlier this year... which seems to currently be in limbo.) As an ex-science major (i.e. a believer in science) and someone who has studied carbon emissions and believes in global warming and a current finance major, I think the time is now to address these issues that will only hurt us more if left unaddressed.

How does that fit into Copenhagen?
Regardless on the agreement that's made in Copenhagen, a strong climate law will help the US reach its part of the agreement. It's expected that at COP 15, much like in Kyoto, the nations will agree on a specific cap on carbon emissions. Having a strong cap-and-trade agreement in place (or any policy limiting emissions for that matter), will only help the US reach the UN decided levels.

What are the implications for the US?
It depends a lot on what is agreed upon at Copenhagen, since they're essentially writing a bill. From what I've read, the world's nations are getting ready to really address these issues and to put a specific goal out there. Also from what I've read, the Obama team has been reluctant to agree to a specific goal, instead pushing for guidelines and suggestions. Though I think it's time for the Obama administration to wake up and to put its money where its mouth is (what happened to all the we're-going-to-save-the-world rhetoric we heard during campaigning??), the fact that Obama is going, and may be ready to commit, is a big deal. Though it is worrisome that he was hesitant to go in the first place - seeing as this is the biggest event regarding climate change all year.

How is it going to affect me?
If all goes well, i.e. if the US realizes that it can not continue to steamroll over the rest of the world and instead starts to act in accordance with other nations, we should see a lot of changes. There will be a new emphasis on clean energy. There will be an influx of green-collar jobs, a relatively new term to describe engineering and mechanic jobs related to building solar panels and wind panels, etc. We can look to countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden, all known to have low carbon emissions. But more importantly, in my opinion, we can look to a country like Germany, who has greatly lowered its carbon footprint in recent years yet still has one of the highest GDPs in the world, and is arguably in a better economic position than the US.

My final two-cents...
The time is now for Obama and the US to show the world that it's a leader. If you believe in global warming, this could be the most important meeting since Kyoto. If you don't believe in global warming, I suggest you take a basic chemistry class and then come talk to me.

Bill Clinton (SFS'68) encourages colleges to go green

Bill Clinton (SFS'68) spoke yesterday at the 2009 Climate Leadership Summit in Chicago, which was sponsored by the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment.

In front of a group of 250 college administrators, Clinton spoke about our need to ramp up action around climate change.

He said, "Every time somebody sees a project on one of your campuses, fixing a building, you are having an impact, even beyond the fight to produce climate change and lower your utility bills."

He also encouraged college students to call into their senators and representatives to advocate for reform.

Bill Clinton is always welcome to come to his alma mater to speak about college sustainability. I think that would be a powerful statement---one that would bear meaning to the campus on multiple levels. Maybe he can speak in the beginning of 2010---42nd for the 42nd, anyone?

I think we learned from his speech that, as is the case with all of us, renewable energy "turns him on," so to speak.

The photo comes from TreeHugger. I chose this over a fantastic but out-of-context photo of me with Clinton from a rally last year.

The College Student's Dream

When I was reading Planet Green earlier today, I came across one of the most amusing names for an article that I have ever seen: "Why Buying Nothing, Doing Less, and Being Lazy Can Help Save the Planet."

This probably brings comfort to many people out there who thought that by doing absolutely nothing that they were not being productive. However, this is the rare occasion where "armchair environmentalism" can be real environmentalism.

Basically, this brings up a few interesting points we've discussed in the past:

• The T-shirt dilemma: How to give out prizes that don't engender environmental costs and waste in and of themselves
• How to get people (myself included) away from a computer and outside

Although doing nothing in some respects has its eco advantage, being active in advocacy is still essential. Want to idle online? Email your Senator about ACES! Guess what--it's also FREE TO DO!

The Waxman Report: A Testament to the Public Interest

Today, I went to see Henry Waxman speak at a Politics & Prose event at the Historic Sixth & I Synagogue downtown. He was speaking about his new book, entitled The Waxman Report, in which he describes the inner workings of Congress: how true reform is achieved.

Does the name Waxman sound familiar? It should. He's the chairman of Energy and Commerce in the House and one of the champions behind ACES (and a long defender of the public interest).

Henry Waxman has represented Los Angeles since 1975, and with 34 years under his belt, he had a lot of knowledge to impart, and I had ready ears to take it all in (and now ready typing fingers to share it with you.)

The best way to begin (my teaser for the rest) is his opening quote: "It has been my long-held belief that government can play a very positive role in millions of people's lives." Waxman, you have made this true.

Waxman's thesis goes against the strain of popular rhetoric begun in the Reagan years that whenever the government touches something, it is doomed to failure. Reagan was of the government was not the solution, but the problem. To Reagan then (and to the right even today), the myth that the government can do nothing right is a deeply held belief.

However, the government has often achieved great things for the public interest--many of which we now take for granted.

Do you have a snack by you right now while you're reading this? Maybe a beverage? Turn it around to read the nutrition label. You can see the calories, the sugar, the fat, the sodium, the nutrients, the ingredients, etc. You know that because of legislation that only came about after a long, arduous struggle with food manufacturers claiming that such labeling would put them out of business. Changing labels--oh the costs! And consumers won't even understand them! Well, many consumers do, and if we are to solve the obesity crisis of today, we need to sharpen our vision for such labels.

Here's another thing you probably take for granted. Think of the last time you were on an airplane. There was no one smoking, was there? Congress took up an "experiment" to ban smoking on planes--tested for two years only on trips of less than 2 hours, and this legislation only passed by one vote. That's right: ONE vote. (Three after it finally got through and some people wanted to be with the winners). Opponents decried the idea that smokers would have to spend so long without cigarettes and suggested just making separate sections on the plane--as if smoke respected boundaries. But the public interest won, the air was made cleaner, we became healthier, and now you may see snakes on a plane, but not smoke. (Sorry, I had to put the bad movie reference in there).

The main issues he discussed were the following:
1) Tobacco Reform: A fight against corporate misinformation and the pollution of the air (Sound familiar?)
2) Ryan White Act (HIV/AIDS Policy)
3) Access to drugs for rare diseases
4) Clean Air Act: A long, grueling fight of ten years but a success for the public interest in the end (Just think what would have happened otherwise. Reagan and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) wanted to "eviscerate" all standards for air pollution and allow auto companies to make cars that would produce emissions twice as large as they are.)

Waxman's talk was a refreshing dose in optimistic public interst liberalism. When asked about he origins of his belief in the positive change the government could achieve, he spoke of his parents, who idolized FDR for his use of the goverment to help people. Waxman laid out the two founding principles of his political philosophy:
1) He believes in ensuring the opportunity for every person to achieve his maximum potential.
2) There are going to be those with luck and talent who will be able to have great success, and there will be those without either who will struggle; however, the government's job is to provide a safety net for those individuals and to respect the DIGNITY of the human being.

When answering someone's question about problems with the military-industrial complex, he presented two important principles for achieving successful reform/championing your cause:
1) Figure out who the true enemies are. Do not assume your enemies, do not overstate your enemies, and try to build coalitions.
2) Individuals CAN make a difference. Try to become an expert in YOUR issue, and you will go far. (He gave a great example about Al Gore here.)

And last but not least, with regard to the legislation mentioned above, he noted how we reflect on many of those things now and can't even fathom that it was otherwise. One day, it will be the same for the reforms for which we are working today. Twenty years from now, your kids will ask you, "There was really a time when....?"

So, take a deep breath of fresh, clean air (a public good Waxman's worked to protect), and get energized for the fall.

Advocating for a Healthy Future

Rep. Louise Slaughter from New York's 28th District, seen in the photo, introduced the Protection of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act last March, and the discussion around it has been revived amidst the health care reform debates.

PAMTA is of significant importance for both environmental and medical reasons.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists,

"70 percent of antibiotics produced in this country -- nearly 13 million pounds per year -- are used in animal agriculture for these nontherapeutic purposes. This amount is estimated to be more than four times the amount of drugs used to treat human illness."

If you saw Food, Inc. (which you need to see if you have not already), you would probably remember the discussion about the feeding of antibiotics to animals to account for the settings of the factory farming situation and to make them grow faster.

These antibiotics go through the animals' digestive systems and end up in the ground, from which they will leak into the groundwater. Rep. Slaughter, a microbiologist by profession, spoke about the damaging effect this can have on human resistance to drugs.

Do you want safe food and water? Do you want people and animals do be in good health? I'm sure you do. So, go here to get your voice heard.

The photo is taken from Rep. Slaughter's website: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22483217@N06/

Wax-ing Poetic for the Future of Waxman-Markey

The time is now.

The air, the sea, the land, the life
Are facing undue pain and strife
And the future seems a bit too grim
And the future bright begins to dim.

The time is now.

But there is hope—the nation’s pride
To change the course, to change the tide.
Where will we be? I don’t know how.
But one thing I know.
The time is now.


To protect our land, to protect our sea
To protect our jobs, protect posteri-ty
To clean our tears, to clean our sky
For these and more—I do know why.

The amber waves of grain no more
They’ve turned to corn—to rot and store
In warehouses, inside a cow
Hungry stomachs, hearts—a broken vow.

The majesty of purple hills
Subject to not quite oil spills
But to the burden of King Coal,
Ripping apart their tops and soul.

The fruited plain has little borne,
No fruits, my friend, just only corn
The land once there, a chem’cal den
To be repeated time and time again.

The grace of God, the other part
The soul, the spirit, and the heart
Seem lost to those who lose their jobs
Who fortune pries and picks and robs.

The sea, the glimmer, that shining sea
Will soon become cal-a-mi-ty
With oil dripping , dripping, dropped
The sea of life, those lives, just stopped.

I do know what, I do know why
I do know when, I do know who
The time is now, the who is you.

The who to make the change we need,
To save today from blind’d greed
To save tomorrow from our sins
To hold up high our hearts and chins
As nation proud and nation strong
And nation bright, as all along
We knew we could if only tried,
If freed from past, from ropes untied.
To see the jobs, the hearts, and sky
For this and more, it’s clearly why
You now must act, the who is you
It is what only you can do
To promise us that truly will
You pass a stronger climate bill.

The Re-Launch of Clean Skies News PLUS a Poem to Sen. Boxer

This morning, July 15th, marked the re-launch of the Clean Skies Network, an energy and environmental online news network. Promoters for the Clean Skies launch (including GU alumna Meg Martin) contacted us at “Renewable Energy Turns Me On” to participate in the exciting event.

The re-launch functioned as an open house for the news network. I was able to sit in on a few live tapings of interviews as well as sit in and watch in the control room. Moreover, the Clean Skies Network office has an aesthetically appealing modern design. Kimberly Collel, part of the American Clean Skies Foundation, said that they were going for a “gallery” design with an airy touch—the brilliant white walls and light, open feeling to the hallways certainly adds that touch. The gallery feel is finished off with glowing energy facts on the walls, reminiscent of exhibits you might see at the Smithsonian. Everything looks bright, new, and clean—how we would love our skies to look, right?

The first event was a live set of interviews with Miles Grant from Grist.org and the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).
Miles Grant was up first and spoke about what he hopes to see for the US climate legislation, especially as Copenhagen looms in the near future. Grant would love to see Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman (and one of EcoAction’s favorite environmental advocates), get a bill through the Senate by the end of the year. However, the bill that we currently have needs work. Grant would like to see more permits auctioned off instead of handed out, for the current arrangement eliminates the revenue potential that originally existed from cap-and-trade. He also wanted a bill that would not only unite the country (in terms of working past regional biases) but also set a standard that is a model for other countries. (Right on, Grant!) One of Grant’s main focuses was the power of American innovation. If you told him thirty years ago that he could have a computer in his pocket in the form of a cell phone with more power than a room-sized computer, he wouldn’t have believed it, and thirty years from now, we will probably have a vast array of new technology in this sector. All we need to do is innovate! Go to work, America!

In the interlude between Grant and Bartlett, Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech (for which today marks the 30th anniversary) was discussed. In this speech, Carter addressed the many crises facing the country at that moment, including the dependence on foreign oil. Sadly, too many of his words ring true. Moreover, thinking of Carter and energy reminded me of the sad fact that Ronald Reagan eliminated the solar panels that Carter installed in the White House. (It becomes even more ironic, thus, that the EPA is in the Ronald Reagan Building, is it not?)

Rep. Bartlett voted against ACES and was very strong against it, using the typical Republican argument against regulation. He does not think that legislation is needed and believes that patriotism and education are the solution. The thrust of Bartlett’s argument was that the US was able to undertake massive efforts in conservation during World War II—Americans saved fuel and resources to provide for the war effort, and we also saw victory gardens spring up across the country. He thinks that such an emphasis on conservation, one rooted in individual action and patriotism, is the solution.

Rep. Bartlett stressed the need for education as a solution, but as we know, the facts are there. As Bill Clinton said at the Campus Progress Conference last year, we can’t bank our future on 5%, the small contingent of climate change deniers among the scientific community. If the facts are there and the moral imperative is there, then why have we not seen action yet? I really can’t see Rush Limbaugh having a garden in his backyard unless he somehow begins to believe in a crazy “liberal” conspiracy on our food system. The other problem in relying solely on individual action is the role of corporations. You can get people to carpool, to install CFLs, to turn off their lights, etc., but that is only one small step. Just think of the vast supply chains that exist in the manufacture and distribution of goods and the production of energy—let alone the energy used by office buildings.

Bartlett kept stressing that the public is educable, but are bad habits that easy to break? Can a patriotic impulse be believed by climate naysayers, or will they just reject it under the influence of the lobbies of our dead energy sources?

However, my favorite part of the Bartlett interview was when he complimented France and Europe as a whole. It is rare that you hear Europe complimented from the American right, but he spoke about the lack of SUVs and individual use pick-up trucks on the streets in France. There is no need for such cars; Europe has far outpaced us in fuel efficiency. Although I disagreed with some of Bartlett’s points, I was comforted to hear a Republican who does believe that action is needed (He’s not another Sarah Palin-type) and has made steps himself (Prius, solar panels, etc.) He puts his belief in individual citizen/consumer action to practice, and for that I respect him.

Next up was Tyson Slocum, the Energy Policy Director of Public Citizen. Slocum spoke about the problems that he saw in Waxman-Markey, notably the way that the bill gives in too much to utility companies. Slocum does not expect to see legislation enacted by Copenhagen, but he actually thinks that not having something rigidly in place could leave us more flexible in negotiations.

After Slocum came Denise Bode of AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). She spoke about the job potential from the wind industry. Wind energy would help to create jobs and do so especially in some of the areas that have been suffering high unemployment.

I also caught the interview of Joseph Romm, editor of Climate Progress. He stressed the transformative impact of the climate legislation but expressed a legitimate concern that much of the American public does not understand the scope of the problem that lies ahead of us. When asked what he would grade Obama on his work on the climate change issue, Romm said that he would give Obama a “B” for his environmental messaging. He would like to see the same effort that is being put behind health care put behind climate change as well. The health of our people, our environment, and our moral authority in the global community depends on this.

If you want to check out my tweets from the event, you can check me out on Twitter at JonathanCohn. Miles Grant and Joseph Romm can also be followed on Twitter as well.

For my final note, a short poem to Senator Boxer,

When it comes to this fall
And you start to roll the ball
For our act to save the air,
The land, and the sea,
And don’t forget posteri-ty,
Get ready for the political game
And be true to your name.

Win the Senate boxing match, Boxer!

Campus Progress 2009: Your Smile's So Bright You Should Get a Solar Panel

Yesterday, I attended Campus Progress's National Conference, where 1,000 young people joined together to learn about the pressing issues facing our country and how to champion the progressive solutions to bring about a better future. I will highlight the big name speakers that were there: Van Jones, Kathleen Sebelius, John Oliver, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Clinton.

Mind you, the whole conference was free--which just makes it so much better. (A free t-shirt also came with it--as did free food.)

Go to the Campus Progress site for more info: http://www.campusprogress.org/common/3725/2009-conference-home.


Even though I ran off to a quick lunchtime Adams Morgan trip, I was (thankfully) able to make it back in time for Van Jones’s speech during the lunch plenary. Van Jones, the author of the Green Collar Economy and founder of Green for All, now works in the White House Council on the Environment as the Special Advisor for Green Jobs. If you saw him at Power Shift, you already know that he is a very inspirational speaker and connects with his audience very well. I have included some memorable points in his speech below:

“As powerful as he is as president, he is more powerful as precedent.”
What a great line! All of the reforms that come as well as all of the barriers broken just open the door for more future opportunities.

“Barack Obama inspires all of you, but who do you think inspires Barack Obama?”
This is a great thought for the politically disenfranchised. The idea that some politicians actually have people’s concerns in mind and in heart is a welcome reminder that politics is not just about money and power—it can be about working for the common good.

When talking about green jobs, Jones noted Hilda Solis—to much applause from the audience. Reacting to such loud approbation, he said that with “so many smiles, we should get some solar panels here.” That has led me to come up with my new favorite eco pick-up line: “Your smile’s so bright I should buy you a solar panel.” (or something along those lines)

After Van Jones spoke, Kathleen Sebelius, former Governor of Kansas and the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, gave her keynote. I am not going to go into full detail here in order to keep this focused, but health care and the environment are inextricably linked because that which damages our air, our land, and our water will also damage our bodies (and, through that, our minds and our souls/spirits).
The evening plenary had the top-name speakers. It was about 2 ½ hours long—full of applause, laughs, smiles, and nods of approbation. First up was John Oliver from The Daily Show. This guy is in all ways hilarious. The audience was laughing nonstop; if you would like to hear some more about this in detail, just ask me.
After Oliver appeared Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She could not be “off campus” for long, but she said that “Well, being here at “Campus” Progress should count, right?” Nancy Pelosi spoke about the three pillars of our budget: 1) education, 2) health care, and 3) energy. These pillars are vital in making the budget “a statement of our national values.”

When discussing energy, she lauded the landmark of ACES, noting its role as a national security bill, a health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. As a national security issue, it helps to provide the US with energy independence—vital when the top oil producing countries often do not like the US. It is health issue for the reasons I noted above. As an economic issue, it helps us to stay competitive in the global market. Pelosi as well as Clinton and Jones mentioned how rapidly China has been developing renewable energy technology; clean and green technology is something that we can innovate right here in the US, and we should not give up such an opportunity. As a moral issue, combating climate change can be religious (“If you believe as I do that this planet is God’s creation, we have a moral responsibility..”) or indicative of the basic generational duty that we have.
When talking about the ultimate passage of ACES, Speaker Pelosi said that we WILL reduce emissions 80% by 2050 and then clarified to say “AT LEAST 80%” to much applause.

Education and climate change are also inextricably tied together (and not just with regard to rampant misinformation). Pelosi quoted a prior statement of hers on the four key parts to a solution to education: “Science, science, science, science.” If we are to innovate our way into a clean energy future, we need our students to have the skills and the intellect to do so—and we need such skills to be available to everyone. (For those of us in the liberal arts, we can write about the tech in newspapers, journals, magazines, etc., and we can write the books that unveil the amazing history of their discovery---my plan, of course.)
Pelosi also cited the importance of “justice for all” in energy, health care, and education—a vital part of any reform.

One of my favorite Nancy moments was her reaction to the five year-old who was sitting in the front row. (Why was a kid there? I still don’t know) When she saw the kid, she said (in a sweet, almost grandmotherly voice), “You are the future.” She then looked at the whole audience to say, “All of you are the future.”
In her closing, she spoke about the Greek word “ananke.” In some interpretations, this word means “scarcity,” but in others it means “opportunity.” At such an intersection (where scarcity meets opportunity) lies the hope, the ability, and the desire for true reform.

Last but certainly not least to appear was former President Bill Clinton. I saw him speak last year at a rally, and he always has an instantaneous connection with his crowd. What is often touted as the essence of his style is to be able to make people feel as though he is talking directly to them; part of this is his very deliberate style of his speech. He seems to put a lot of thought in all that he says.

Clinton spoke for a while about the need for a “communitarian” approach to the issues facing us and the world, in other words, the idea that “We’re all in this together.” Such an approach has been eschewed for the past few decades because of the “politics of division” (often cited as culture wars) around issues that distract us from the pressing ones. He stressed the importance of reflecting on what the implications of the issues (and solutions) on our lives—best way to see what is of genuine importance.

In the modern day, as Clinton said, good citizenship requires more than it did in the 20th century. Issues like the economy and the environment cannot be isolated and cannot be ignored; it become our duty to “advance public good as private citizens”—for each person to see his or her role as a stakeholder in the future.
When we work toward such a future, the question is not “what” or “how much.” The true question, as Clinton drove home, was “how.” How do we get there? How do we innovate to obtain the future that we need, for which we hope and aspire, that can be within our reach with just a little effort? It is this brainpower, creativity, intellect, and drive that makes the world turn. Many say that money makes the world go round, but to do so ignores the power of ideas. It is this creativity and this intellect that not only makes the world go round but also changes it.

Some Key Points to Take Away From the Conference:

• There are people who care about your opinions and do want to work (actively and profoundly) for the common good. Find out which politicians they are and be their champions. Find out who they are not, and force them to change if they want to stay. (AKA LOBBY—Someone will listen.)
• Know where your money goes. I think that endowment transparency is a major issue for Georgetown and needs more attention.
• As I feel that I have written before, human power is the greatest renewable resource. Use it (your brains, your motivation, your energy) to power our future.

America, the Beautiful?

The other day, when I was thinking about July 4th, the well-known song "America the Beautiful" (by Katharine Lee Bates) came to mind. I thought today would be a good time to reflect on the lyrics of the song:

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain
America! America!
God shed your grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

When the emissions from our cars, our factories, our burning fuels threaten the spacious skies,
and the chemical fertilizers and pesticides threaten the amber waves of grain,
and strip mining threatens the purple mountains' majesties,
and the shining sea faces oil spills and toxic waste,
then where is the grace, the good, the brotherhood?

So, take this July 4th to reflect not only on the past and the present of the good ole US of A but, even more importantly, of its future--of the promise that awaits with the right steps forward. With the right voices, the right actions, and the right enthusiasm, progress is possible.

"Never underestimate the power of a small but committed group of people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." – Margaret Mead

Image from finartamerica.com

Acing Aces (and other bills): How to Organize Over the Summer

Bill Scher of ourfuture.org wrote an article on Huffington Post earlier today about his disappointment with the lack of grassroots activism around the climate bill. As we know, the bill got passed by a tight margin--only with the work of a lot of last minute deals (and 300 pages worth of amendments).

Reading this made me reflect on the role of activism over the summer. Obviously, as a college environmental group, we have a much easier time rallying support during the academic year. We can go out to Red Square and hold call-ins, we can expect that our members are regularly checking emails, and everyone tends to be very engaged and politically active. Over the summer, people disperse, get busy with work, or get distracted with leisure.

What lies ahead, then, when the bill goes to the Senate?

One thing that I would recommend for everyone to do is to follow 1Sky on twitter. Some of you have twitter accounts, and some don't, but I truly appreciated the value of twitter last Friday. I was walking home during a lot of the debate on the House floor, but that didn't stop me from knowing exactly what was going on. 1Sky was tweeting the comments that each Rep was making, and better still, they provided a link to a site where you could send an email to the Reps who did not support the bill to tell them why their arguments were wrong. During the 45 minute walk back, I was hooked.

Back on the main point, I know our google group is not the best tool for the instant dissemination of messages because messages can be received in a weekly digest. Facebook messages can easily be ignored--since the amass too quickly. Facebook events also don't get immediate response.

Blogging can be valuable if you have a constant readership.

So, here is my question to all of you eco-active Hoyas: What do you think is the best way to organize in such a climate (that of dispersion/summer) for the sake of the climate?

American Clean Energy and Security Act PASSES the HOUSE!

Don't know if you guys followed this like Jon and I did this afternoon, but the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey bill and HR 2454).

If this bill becomes law, it will enact a Cap and Trade system for the United States.

The bill passed 219 - 212 - so it REALLY just squeaked by. 211 Democrats voted in favor of it, with 44 Democratic noes. 8 Republicans voted in favor of it [including my Representative, Leonard Lance!!] with 168 Republican noes.

This bill was expected to pass through the House, however the bigger fight will be when it comes to the Senate in a few months. It will likely undergo major changes and there will be a ton of revisions on it before it comes to vote. To pass the Senate, it will need at least 60 votes (to overcome the filibuster).

To read the full bill, click here [Warning: it is about 1000 pages long...]. To read a summary of the bill, click here. To see if your Representative voted for it, click here. For more information on what cap and trade is, read on.

ALSO: if your Representative voted in favor of it, PLEASE send him/her a thank you note!! (It's only polite...)

Have no idea what cap and trade is? It is essentially an economic-driven basis for carbon emissions regulation.

Each building and business emits carbon dioxide. The government would then, in this case, give permits to each business based on how much carbon dioxide they emit.

If the businesses emitted less carbon than their permits allowed, then they could sell it to other businesses. If they emitted more carbon, they would be required to buy permits. This creates a market, where businesses who emit less carbon can profit. The idea is that the government, over time, would decrease the permits in the market, meaning less carbon would be emitted.

Great in theory, difficult in real life, as shown by the EU, which enacted a mandatory carbon emissions program with the Kyoto Protocol. In Phase One, businesses set the bar too high. They told the government that they emitted much more carbon than they actually did, and they all got more carbon permits than they needed. Therefore, no market was created because there was too much supply and no demand. It has been fixed and is successful now, in it's current stage (Phase Two).

The US DOES currently trade carbon emission permits (as I was surprised to know), but it is on an optional basis. This law would make it mandatory.

Sounds great, right? Well there are, admittedly, a lot of problems with this particular law.

Republicans, in general, would have you believe it is a "Cap and Tax" bill. It's not. It would increase the price of energy by approximately $200 a month, much less than the $1500 or so the Republicans claim. This is because certain energy will cost more than other, less efficient energy - encouraging people to switch to more efficient energy. (Duh.)

Other issues are that it would negatively impact certain industries, notably farming (which produces a ton of carbon emissions) and coal (for obvious reasons). Representatives with heavy populations in these industries understandably were reluctant to vote for this bill.

Propaganda from the Republicans were that it was a "tax" and that jobs would go to China. No, really. One major argument was that the US would be at a huge disadvantage and lose jobs to China. As one Representative, in favor of the bill, pointed out, the jobs that would have been lost to China have ALREADY gone there. (Simply because labor is cheaper there... basic economics.)

What it comes down to is that other countries are going to enter this. Regardless of India and China's status (do we really need to wait for them to take action before we do? So much for being leaders of the world...) this is the direction that the world is headed in. We can either get into it now, or fall behind.

Here are two sites that explain cap and trade in basic terms: here and here.

Image from the Environmental Defense Fund.

Assessing the Climate Bill

If you’re at all serious about climate change, you’ve hopefully been following the recent negotiations over the so-called “Waxman/Markey” bill, because it’s pretty much the biggest game in town right now when it comes to the environmental movement. The bill, introduced by Democratic representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey and known formally as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will clear a major procedural hurdle this week if it can make it through a vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Notably, the bill would create a nationwide “cap and trade” system to oversee the long-term reduction of US carbon emissions. If you’re not quite up to speed on cap and trade, it essentially means that a national “cap” would be set on carbon emissions, decreasing over time to theoretically insure an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Emitters of carbon dioxide would then be able to “trade” emissions credits if they come in under the cap, or be forced to buy credits if they continue to emit more than the permitted amount of carbon dioxide.

Cap and trade systems are widely considered to be the most politically and economically viable way to reduce emissions on a large scale. Our country already operates a cap and trade system to contain emissions of sulfur dioxide, which has been highly successful. The world’s largest cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions has been operating in Europe since 2005; they call theirs an “emissions trading scheme,” which does sound decidedly more European.

For our proposed cap and trade bill, negotiations in the Energy and Commerce Committee have been pretty contentious. Republican Rep. George Radonovich of California called the Waxman/Markey bill “environmental socialism,” while Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican member on the committee, displayed with the following quote why the his party has little credibility left on any matter related to science:

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? I mean, it does make some sense."

Yeah…not exactly.

Despite the predictable Republican opposition, however, with large majorities both on the committee and on the full House floor, most of the debate over this bill has actually come within the Democratic Party, with centrist representatives from coal-producing areas (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, etc.) especially concerned about the potential economic impacts of putting a price on carbon. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, was responsible for leading an effort a couple of weeks ago to put the Waxman/Markey bill on the shelf indefinitely. “In the throes of a recession,” said Davis, “more of a burden on industry is not a good idea.”

Waxman, who chairs the Energy and Commerce committee, has forged ahead in search of a compromise. And as Mike noted last week, it hasn’t necessarily been pretty. The climate bill, released in final draft form last Friday and set for a vote potentially by the end of this week, has been watered down considerably from Waxman and Markey’s original proposal, and from President Obama’s own cap and trade preferences as laid out in his 2010 budget. As Mike mentioned, the initial emissions reduction target has been lowered from 20 percent by 2020 to 17 percent by 2020. This doesn’t seem like the biggest cut, but still – it’s the little things. More significantly, though, the bill, which originally proposed that 100 percent of emissions allowances under the cap and trade plan be auctioned off by the federal government, will now provide for 85 percent of the allowances to be allocated freely to utilities, oil refiners, heating companies, and various heavy industries like cement and steel. This is potentially troubling because the decision not to auction permits not only minimizes the incentive to invest in cleaner technologies; it also results in the loss of a significant revenue stream for the federal government that makes the debt-related concerns about Obama’s budget begin to shine brighter and brighter. Some of the money from the cap and trade scheme, estimated in Barack’s original budget proposal at over $600 billion, was also intended to promote renewable energy development. Without those funds, this becomes considerably more difficult, along with the quest to make Waxman and Markey’s bill “budget-neutral.”

There are a host of other concerns that should give pause to people concerned about the bill’s potential effectiveness. Standards for renewable energy use in electricity generation have also been trimmed, while provisions also exist for carbon emitters to “lower” their emissions by investing in carbon offsets, which essentially means taking the easy way out and not actually transitioning away from dirty technologies.

In light of all these compromises, how, as environmentalists, should we view the climate bill in its current state?

While I sympathize with Mike’s criticism that “negotiations in the Energy & Commerce Committee have severely limited the potential impact of Reps Waxman and Markey's cap and trade legislation,” I think I’d have to disagree with his characterization of the committee’s negotiations as a “FAIL.” We need to recognize that the most important thing right now, above all, should be putting a system in place, and establishing the fact that from this point forward, there will be a steadily decreasing cap on America’s carbon dioxide emissions. As long as this system works okay, even passably, the tinkering can come later to optimize the environmental and economic results.

We should ask ourselves what’s better: do we hold out for a perfect system that is (albeit sadly) probably not politically feasible right now, given the concerns among powerful members in our own party, with an understanding that this approach would probably compromise the more important goal of putting a price on carbon as soon as possible? Or do we understand that the legislative process is going to result in some compromises, and realize that this bill, while imperfect, is still a tremendous and necessary step in the right direction?

Take Europe for example. In setting up the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), they basically had the same debate about seven years ago that we’re currently having. The European Commission (the EU’s executive body), in the spirit of getting a functioning system together, worked closely with industry leaders and EU Member States to arrive at an initial ETS with a few key provisions that were against the Commission’s preferences. One of the areas in which the Commission caved? The EU’s decision to allocate allowances freely.

Europe’s initial failures with its emissions trading scheme have been well documented. During the scheme’s first, or “trial” phase, from 2005-2007, emissions in Europe actually rose by nearly 2 percent. Though the free allowances have been blamed, this was not the only reason for the ETS’ beginning troubles. Another big issue with the ETS in the trial phase was that many countries allocated significantly more emissions allowances than the EU-wide cap provided for, resulting in an over-supply that destroyed much of the market demand for allowances and caused the price of carbon to crash to just €0.02 per ton by the end of the trading period in December 2007.

The Commission introduced some key reforms for 2008, taking greater control of the allocation process to insure that the Member States allocated fewer permits. The demand for, and accompanying price of carbon recovered accordingly, combining with the economic recession to produce a 2 percent drop in emissions for 2008. The EU also negotiated some important reforms for the trading period from 2013-2020, which will see a greater use of allowance auctioning and a generally harder line taken on European polluters. Undoubtedly, the jury will remain out on Europe’s emissions trading scheme as more results continue to emerge. But two things that Europe’s experience suggests, at least initially, are important to consider:

-First, the price of carbon will likely be far more important than how the emissions permits are allocated. When the price of carbon in Europe was high (in 2008, and also before it crashed during the first trading period), efforts to reduce carbon emissions took place. When it was too low, those efforts fell off. In looking at our own proposed cap and trade system, we should worry less about auctioning and more about making sure that sufficiently few permits are allocated so that there is enough market scarcity for the price of carbon to remain high.

-Secondly, the Commission’s willingness to compromise in order to put a system in place has resulted in an ETS that is now credible enough to allow for reforms that will make it work better in the long term. Without those compromises, efforts to get the EU ETS off the ground would likely have failed.

Waxman and Markey appear to be especially cognizant of the second fact. It’s also what Paul Krugman wrote about the other day in the New York Times when he warned against making “the perfect the enemy of the good.” Adds Krugman: “After all the years of denial, after all the years of inaction, we finally have a chance to do something major about climate change. Waxman-Markey is imperfect, it’s disappointing in some respects, but it’s action we can take now. And the planet won’t wait.”

Presumably following this same line of thinking, Al Gore has voiced his support for Waxman/Markey in its current state, as have many environmental groups. Amazingly, the negotiations in the Energy and Commerce committee have produced a scenario where industry leaders are working with, as opposed to against, environmental interests, to come up with a scheme that is widely acceptable. I would of course like to see a more stringent cap and trade proposal, but I also recognize that as environmentalists, at a certain point we’re going to have to be more than intransigent tree-huggers.

What we’re seeing right now, I think, is the evolution of the environmental movement into a credible political body that can actually get things done as opposed to continually trying to beat down the door. The continued Republican opposition to Waxman/Markey is unfortunately predictable, but Democratic leaders are apparently rallying around the bill, which may be enough to (finally!) pass a workable cap on carbon emissions in the United States. As environmentalists, we should undoubtedly continue to advocate for the best bill possible, especially as it traverses the dangerous, dream-destroying legislative waters of the United States Senate. If Waxman/Markey makes it into law, we should follow it closely and make sure it works and continues to work as best as possible.

What we can’t do, however, is make the perfect the enemy of the good. The planet can’t support too many more years without a US carbon cap, which means it also can’t support an approach to environmentalism that rejects anything and everything that is not entirely ideal, or perfectly “eco-friendly.” Even in its present state, if we can get Waxman/Markey signed into law, I think we’ll all be happy for it going forward.

(Image courtesy Allianz Knowledge)

It's About Time: Plans on Mileage and Emissions

Earlier today, President Obama announced national rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards. Though these rules won't take effect until 2012, it's a good start.

The new mileage standard will be 35.5 miles per gallon, a rise from the current rule of 25. One of the issues with regulating mileage standards is that each state determines its own. California currently has a mileage standard of about 35.5, with a few states (and the District of Columbia!) planning to adopt California's standards. Now, with a national standard, this will be unnecessary.

It is supported by both environmentalists (for obvious reasons) and the auto industry, which is currently planning its business strategy.

Read more about this plan from the New York Times or from New York Magazine, which offers a wide range of opinions.

[UPDATE: 5/20, the NYT's editorial board endorses this act in "The Earth Wins One."]

FAIL: The Energy & Commerce Committee

So maybe it's not an epic fail, but negotiations in the Energy & Commerce Committee have severely limited the potential impact of Reps Waxman and Markey's cap and trade legislation. The agreement, which will enter the markup phase on Monday, calls for a 17% carbon emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, which isn't bad (it tops the 14% President Obama campaigned for) but it is a reduction in the original plan, which called for 20% reductions.

However, that's a mole hill compared to the mountain of a concession Waxman and Markey have made in deciding to give away about half of the pollution permits for free to utilities and endangered industries. Under their agreement, the bill would allow for 35% of permits to be given away free to power distribution companies and 15% to be given free to power intensive industries, like steel and cement production. Also 1-5% could be given away to petroleum refiners.

Don't get me wrong - this bill is still very important for clean energy supporters. It will begin to price dirty energy in realistic terms and it will present the US's commitment to renewable energy before international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this winter. But at the same time these concessions present two types of problems...

1. Economic: We're kind of in a budget deficit. And we kind of will be for a few years, according to President Obama's proposed budget. That same budget also accounts for hundreds of billions in revenues from carbon permit sales. Well, you can't earn revenue if you're giving them away free, can you? This loss in government revenue threatens to be enough to hurt the President's promise of a middle class tax cut, something that kinda sorta mighta won him the election...

2. Environmental: The EU's cap and trade plan gave away all of the permits for free initially, and subsequently their carbon emissions increased over the first few years of their plan. That probably won't happen in the US - we're learning at least something from the Old World's mistakes - but it is pretty obvious that auctioning all of the permits would do a much better job of cutting emissions and encouraging the switch to a clean energy future.

I'll try to continue updating Renewable Energy Turns Me On on the cap and trade bill's progress this summer. It's expected to get out of committee by Memorial Day, then it's onto the floor. That's when it'll get really fun - a recent poll showed only 24% of Americans even know that "cap and trade" is a term that refers to environmental issues...

Duh

In an effort to make itself an example for the rest of the nation to follow, Capitol Hill will no longer be powered by coal. You heard right, the Capitol Power Plant is currently transitioning to cleaner burning natural gas for its boilers' fuel source. Coal will be used in emergency situations - like cold winter days - until late 2010 when the plant will be able to meet any predictable demand with natural gas.

The Capitol Power Plant isn't exactly large, but the importance of this act lies in its symbolism. If Congress is to lead us to a new energy future, maybe their electricity shouldn't come from old world sources. Natural gas isn't exactly an alternative energy source (actually, it's not one at all), but at least it's a step in the right direction.

More important is exactly how this change came about.

Remember the Power Shift conference in March? Well, a big part of that event was a youth lobby day on the Hill demanding clean energy legislation. During the hoopla, a coalition of environmental groups put together a protest of the Capitol Power Plant's use of coal, which not only creates tons of emissions, but also is detrimental to the air quality in SE DC, and don't even get me started about mountain coal mining...

But anyway, that coalition effectively reached out to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in turn requested that the acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, transition the plant away from coal. And, as of today, the Ayers announced the current transition. Bravo for youth lobbying and the slow creep of common sense onto Capitol Hill!!

This is why I love carbon capping

At EcoAction's clothing swap last week, I was having an oh-too-serious conversation about carbon cap legislation, carbon capture technology (which some crazy people have tried to convince us makes coal green and clean), and why the government should support both. The conversation/argument was mostly about whether or not the government should subsidize carbon capture research. My argument was, as long as carbon emissions have a price, then renewable energy can beat dirty energy in the marketplace. Even with the government's help, coal would never beat wind under a carbon cap scenario. So why not help it out? I mean, capturing carbon emissions underground does seem pretty great if it's feasible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as an aside, check out what happened last time the Dept. of Energy tried to do this on a large scale. Finance majors - remember to discount before making an NPV comparison! http://commontragedies.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/how-the-doe-deflated-futuregen/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, while I was at work the other day I found this great report on the consequences of different scenarios on the energy market. The Congressional Research Service estimates that under a cap & trade bill in which all allowances are auctioned off (Europe gave them all away for free and for the first few years of their program, total emissions increased.....) wind power would be about 20% cheaper than any type of coal power. In fact, even if the government subsidizes carbon capture research and the coal industry is able to implement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at costs 50% below current estimates, wind would still win on price! This made me unspeakably happy.

Despite what your views on the environment and global warming are, the truth is simple: carbon emissions cost us money. A lot of it. Like, hundreds of million of refugees and crazy silly droughts and rebuilding cities in less than a century type of money. So, why do we live in a fantasy land where polluters can emit carbon for free? Well, by the end of the summer, hopefully we'll be living in reality. The ball is in your court, Congress - give us cap & trade!