So... where does that leave us with regards to the oil spill?

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

The only thing I can say for certain, people won't forget anytime soon.

If you've been reading my last posts about the BP oil spill, first off: thanks!  They're pretty lengthy, but I think I've managed to get a lot of information in them.  Secondly, I don't think anyone knows what's going on or what's going to happen.  I have some predictions, as well as a run through of some historically huge oil spill disasters, and some thoughts about what we can do to help.


As always, your feedback is much appreciated.

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.

We Never Talk About Global Warming Anymore

Yesterday was “Blog Action Day” for climate change topics, whatever that means…

So in the spirit of yesterday, let’s talk about student activism on climate change. Over my three-plus years in college, I’ve witnessed immense progress in how students view their impact on our world. When I came to Georgetown in 2006, global warming was still considered “global warming” for the mainstream folk. This was an age where we actually needed Al Gore to stand in front of a powerpoint in order to even begin considering how our personal, political, and economic choices impact our world. But like I said, that was sooo 2006.


Today, our campus – and I think all campuses – are alive with the spirit of sustainability, all driven by the presence of global warming. The beauty of this movement lies not in what EcoAction has become, but rather in how environmental sustainability has begun to leach into every aspect of life. The speakers that come here are environmental leaders; we have green architecture; we have an energy competition going on (admittedly, it’s woefully underpublicized); the SFS is switching Map of the Modern World to be based around geography more than political lines; the Sustainability Committee continues to make practical improvements to campus footprint; and every b-school student is trying to figure out exactly how to capitalize on all of this energy.

Over this time period, EcoAction has exploded. The organization takes on campaigns from all ranges of the environmentalist landscape, from sustainable food and park cleanups – central tenets for any tree-hugger – to carbon auditing and lobbying. I always expected this of EcoAction. I mean, it’s what we do. We’re an environmental group. But the broader things happening on campuses around the country are more exciting; the mainstream has finally gets it. And here’s where we’re at in terms of climate change activism on college campuses: the point at which it’s hardly anything you need to remind people about. But we still do, and we’re not stopping!

In line with not stopping reminding people about climate change, here’s a cheap, dirty plug for the raddest youth climate change summit this side of the Potomac. Virginia Power Shift is here! It’s happening at George Mason (so I guess it’s not exactly on this side of the Potomac, unless I don’t understand our local geography…) on Oct. 23-25, and Georgetown is sending a big group. Be there!

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.

What George Will Doesn't See

Well, first of all, the answer is probably a lot of things, more than could possibly be discussed here. But I needed to write something in response to his op-ed piece in the Washington Post today.

The noted climate denier and Post op-ed writer wrote about what he sees as the increasing skepticism around climate change and the lack of youth activism.

He writes,

"When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade."

Which could explain why the Mall does not reverberate with youthful clamors about carbon. And why, regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying."

As someone right in the middle of the age bracket provided by Will and a "young American," I can strongly say that there is a lot about youth that George does not seem to know.

First of all, today's youth is educated. More young people are attending college today than in the generations of our parents and grandparents. And these young people understand facts. Not everyone will be a science whiz, but we are not that easily duped by climate misinformation. We grew up reading about the ozone layer in Scholastic magazine and hearing about the environment on Nick News. Since we were toddlers or elementary school children, the Clean Air Act has been in place. We learned about pollution in our science classes back in elementary school. Now that we are older, we study the history behind the environment, the workings of the government, the principles of economics, and the dynamics of foreign countries. Do not underestimate us.

Moreover, our generation lives in the aftermath of the downfall of Big Tobacco. One of the most powerful lobbies had been brought to its knees during our lives so far. Bad science and corporate misinformation was at the heart of Big Tobacco's success for a while, but the public interest won in the end. We environmental activists need to study the success of the fight against Big Tobacco because there is a lot to learn and to bring to the table in reforming agriculture and energy.

Lastly, Mr. Will, today's youth does care. Maybe some of them don't know the steps to take, but when directed, they will gladly help. We have our outdoor enthusiasts, our global humanitarians, and our general do-gooders. They fill our universities today, and they fill conferences and events all the time to learn more about this issue. 10,000 of them attended Power Shift this past February. That's right, Mr. Will, 10,000 of us right here in Washington.

We may not be marching on Washington every day, but that is because we bring our activism to our own communities---spreading the word to our families, our friends, our classmates, our colleagues, our professors. Or maybe we are working for firms, NGOs, or nonprofits that are seeking to make a difference. You might not see us (Myopia is a sad side effect of age), but do not doubt for one moment that we are there.

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.

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.

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.

The Economic Impact of Climate Change

Interesting post to the New York Times Green Inc. and Economix blogs today about a report released by the Obama administration detailing the economic impacts of climate change. The report, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), lays out a veritable orgy of consequences if we can't get our environmental house in order and global warming is allowed to continue unabated. This sounds scary:

Flooding in particularly may cause mayhem in coastal areas like New York, the report says:

What is currently called a 100-year storm is projected to occur as often as every 10 years by late this century. Portions of lower Manhattan and coastal areas of Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Nassau County, would experience a marked increase in flooding frequency. Much of the critical transportation infrastructure, including tunnels, subways, and airports, lies well within the range of projected storm surge and would be flooded during such events.

Opponents of aggressive action to curb the dangerous changing of our climate like to claim that such action would have a catastrophic impact on our economy. Rarely, however, do we consider the economic impact of not doing anything. Here's what the report has to say about the potential cost for the insurance industry of more powerful storms and more unpredictable weather:

The insurance industry — especially government-sponsored insurance — will face major challenges. “In an average year, about 90 percent of insured catastrophe losses worldwide are weather-related,” the report says. “Escalating exposures to catastrophic weather events, coupled with private insurers’ withdrawal from various markets, are placing the federal government at increased financial risk as insurer of last resort.”

As illustrated by the debt-fueled consumerism that inflated our national economic bubble so large that it finally came crashing down all over itself and everything else, we live in a country that doesn't always like to take the long view. But despite any near-term economic sacrifices that might have to be made to legitimately battle climate change, it's clear that these pale in comparison to what may be faced under a business-as-usual scenario. Indeed, the most compelling argument for doing something, and doing something now, is still the promise of building an economy that doesn't depend on carbon emissions for its health and overall growth. It will take a whole lot of jobs to build the renewable energy systems needed to replace the amount of energy currently generated from dirtier technologies like coal and oil, far more than we will lose from letting these industries ride off into the sunset. There's a lot more promise in the potential growth of clean technologies than in the senseless propping up of an economic framework that seems bound to cost us more in the end.

For a country recently driven by "buy now, pay later" credit card debt, "invest now, or pay later," seems like the more relevant phrase when it comes to making the necessary changes to our economy.


Global Climate Changes, National Impacts (NY Times)
The Economic Impact of Climate Change (NY Times)

Image courtesy theweza.wordpress.com

Want to be part of real action on global warming?

I wanted to share this information for any interested students--- applications are due by June 1.

"SustainUS is now accepting applications for the UN Climate Negotiations!

Agents of Change is now accepting applications to join the SustainUS youth delegation to the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention and fifth meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP15 and COP/MOP5), which will be in Copenhagen, Denmark from December 7-18, 2009. COP15 will determine the future international policy on climate change, and youth must make their voice heard. Between now and December, youth from across the globe will organize to bring a sense of urgency and rationality to the meeting. The future of the UNFCCC process is up for debate and with it the future of international action to stop climate change. If the UNFCCC cannot respond to the urgent conclusions contained in the report of the IPCC, the ability of the international mechanism to respond to global challenges might become irrelevant.

Applications and more info are available for download at http://www.sustainus.org/."