No deal is better than a deal that pretends to be one!
Aug 18th, 2009 in Featured Articles, NewswireNOT JUST ANY OLD CLIMATE BILL WILL DO!
GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING FASTER THAN ANYONE PREDICTED.
In December 2008, a major Climate Science Congress, attended by over 2,000 scientists, concluded: “the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” We are receiving daily reports on the alarming rate of Arctic ice melting. Climate change is now recognized as likely the most serious threat to national security, because it threatens to inundate low lying areas, sending waves of refugees scattering, disrupt agriculture leading to widespread famines, spreading disease, extinctions and massive civil conflict. As the nation with leading per capita emission now, and with by far the greatest historical contribution to greenhouse gases, it is absolutely essential that we take responsibility for this mess, and fast! A federal climate bill that seriously limits emissions, in line with what climate scientists advise, is key.
But the current bill, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (ACESA) that passed the house last month is entirely inadequate, having been twisted, warped and compromised by special interests who literally “held the bill hostage” with their demands.
Now we must demand not just a climate bill, but a truly historic and groundbreaking and effective bill from the Senate; one that will lead us back towards a safe future for our children and future generations.
ACESA’s target setting would not even aim to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at the dangerously high level of 450 ppm CO2 eq. Scientists have long argued we need to stabilize at 350 or lower! Right now we are at 387 and already losing the Arctic ice VERY rapidly, along with numerous other deeply troubling signs that warming is ALREADY in a “runaway” feedback. Even if ACESA DID point us towards 450 ppm, that would be WAY TOO HIGH! Last time the earth had such high levels it was entirely ice free, sea levels were around 200 m higher. Also, the rate of CO2 increase is proceeding much more rapidly now, meaning that species will not have time to adapt. We need to listen to what scientists are telling us if we want to stand a chance at preserving life! The earth is not concerned with “political feasibility” or economics!
ACESA sets reduction targets that are ludicrously small! The emissions cap sets targets relative to a baseline of 2005 rather than the standard 1990 baseline used in most other contexts. Since emissions were higher in 2005, reduction targets look bigger that they would relative to 1990. Sweeping away this veil of deception: ACES aims to reduce US emissions by a mere 1% by the year 2020[13] If we are to get real about addressing global warming, we need far more ambition! Measures like halting deforestation and letting our natural ecosystems regenerate would help a lot, but that can’t happen if we look at trees and grasses as “renewable energy” to be burned for heat and electricity.
OFFSETS: Even that very meager reduction that ACESA seeks will be severely compromised because the bill provides for the use of massive quantities of “offsets” which enable polluters to buy “credits” rather than reduce pollution. The credits are supposedly used to purchase emissions reductions “somewhere else”. But these are very difficult to verify, and where they have been used in the past, often are paying for things that are …happening any way. We need really, truly honestly to reduce emissions. No more game playing!
CAP AND TRADE: ACESA adopts a “Cap and Trade” system that sets an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions (a good idea), but then it hands out permits to major polluters and allows those industries to buy and sell permits as needed. Those who reduce emissions below the cap can sell their permits to those who do not. Cap and Trade will create a risky market in pollution credits that is vulnerable to cheating and manipulation. Where cap and trade has already been tried, it has proven either disastrous – with companies passing along the costs to ratepayers and making windfall profits without reducing emissions….and/or less effective than straightforward regulation. Many, many experts, agree that better alternatives exist, such as revenue-neutral carbon tax-dividend, or carbon tax swap. These approaches would return revenue to consumers as equal dividends, or as reduced income/payroll tax in an equitable manner rather than reaping further profits for corporations and passing along the costs to ratepayers. Most economists, the Congressional Budget Office, and some outspoken scientists believe this is a simple, robust, cost effective, transparent, equitable and just mechanism for achieving greenhouse gas reductions, and could be implemented quickly. Some have argued to “keep the cap and ditch the trade”…
REPEALING EPA AUTHORITY: ACES would seek to repeal the EPA’s authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gases. That authority was only recently granted by the supreme court, following a battle that Vermont worked hard to win, Bush tried to stifle, and Obama reinforced. The Clean Air Act is one of our best tools for regulating emissions, and adding greenhouse gas emissions would be relatively straightforward. The coal industry does not want this to happen because they see the writing on the wall!
NOT ALL RENEWABLE ENERGY IS RENEWABLE:
ACESA provides various supports for “Renewable Energy”, but this includes “burn technologies” such as incineration of wastes and burning of plant biomass for heat and electricity. Many in the environmental community are recognizing that burning anything at all is not clean, green or sustainable. Toxic air emissions and ash are created, even with “clean plant biomass” such as woodchips, but especially where materials like municipal solid waste are burned, releasing dioxins, furans, PCBs etc. New incinerator technologies, contrary to claims, do NOT avert these emissions. What goes in must come out! Additionally burning biomass is very inefficient! Estimates are that every megawatt of electricity from wood burning facilities requires about 13,000 tons of wood per year. Our forest, ecosystems, soils and waterways cannot sustain such enormous demands! Especially since, at the same time, we need to be restoring and regenerating forests, grasslands and soils as one of the only significant means we have of sequestering CO2 out of the atmosphere! Burning wood, contrary to the oft heard mantra, is NOT “carbon neutral”. In fact it releases more CO2 than burning coal! The regrowth of trees to resequeter that carbon can take decades, a time frame we certainly cannot afford!)
There simply is no alternative energy source(s) that can sustain current levels of consumption. We must face up to the reality that a dramatic reduction in consumption is essential, and invest only in truly clean energy.
PLEASE JOIN US IN DEMANDING “NOT JUST ANY OLD CLIMATE BILL”. The mainstream environmental organizations are shouting from the hilltops that we need a bill. period. They are providing no analysis, and blindly advocating as if being concerned about climate change is enough. But as it stands now, ACESA could lock in place many measures that would hamper meaningful action for years to come. James Hansen has even declared “it would be better for the climate if this bill fails to become law”. We MUST RESIST, tell our representatives to go back to the drawing room, close the doors to lobbyists and special interests, and put together a climate bill that will truly PROTECT LIFE ON EARTH AND OUR CHILDREN”S FUTURE! NOW!
“First we were told not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Then we were told not to let the good be the enemy of the mediocre; then we weren’t to make the mediocre the enemy of the awful. And now we must not be purists who turn the awful into the enemy of the completely disgusting.”
Instead of settling for the “completely disgusting, what if we DEMAND the truly good? Here are just a few ideas!
>set goals with the intent of achieving a stabilization at 300-350 ppm, and make targets relevant to the standard 1990 emissions levels. This will mean very deep cuts! But we MUST do it.
>Adopt a stringent cap and tax emissions using a revenue neutral tax and dividend or tax-swap that will be effective and will not punish low income members of communities.
>No offsets! We must reduce, not offset emissions.
>Phase out all coal burning rapidly, in concert with adopting strict efficiency and conservation standards that will reduce demand for electricity and heat dramatically!
>Invest in truly clean and renewable energy technologies – wind and solar and geothermal where appropriate. No burning! And invest in ways to use less.
>Reduce waste, for example in packaging: adopt “zero waste” strategies.
>Invest in public transportation and limit private car ownership and use! Adopt much higher fuel efficiency standards for private automobiles where deemed absolutely essential.
>Reduce meat consumption, (methane a potent greenhouse gas, and feed production involves industrial agriculture practices that are energy intensive and damage soils).
>Invest in local, diverse farming practices that will reduce demand for artificial fertilizer (Nitrogen oxides largely from fertilizer are a major very potent greenhouse gas!), reduce use of agrichemicals, and reduce the transport, packaging and processing of food.
>Divert military spending to address the challenge of climate change, including fulfilling our obligations to help developing countries meet the challenge. The military is also the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions! What are our priorities??
>Support decentralized, publicly owned power generation and distribution.
>Protect, restore and regrow forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems and soils.
>Tell people the truth! Massive education about the causes and consequences of climate change is desperately needed, and would help to garner support for tough measures!
AND MUCH MUCH MORE!
7 Responses to “No deal is better than a deal that pretends to be one!”
Climate Justice News Feed
- More analysis on Obama’s SOTU address: On his “Clean Energy Shout Out to the Dept of Defense” February 4, 2012
- Senate Republicans Attempt End Run Around Rejection of Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline February 3, 2012
- Senate Republicans Attempt End Run Around Rejection of Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline February 3, 2012
- International Gathering for Human Rights in Solidarity with Honduras, February 17-20th, 2012 February 3, 2012
- Documentary filmaker Josh Fox, director of “Gasland,” arrested yesterday for filming Congressional subcommittee hearing on fracking (video) February 2, 2012
- UN Climate Conference: The Durban Disaster February 2, 2012
- UN Climate Conference: The Durban Disaster February 2, 2012
- Up close one year later: startling new photos of uncontacted Indians released February 2, 2012
- Indigenous communities in Peru condemn the further adventures of an Australian carbon cowboy February 2, 2012
Our organization supports James Hansen’s recommendations for a realistic climate bill.
YES; I agree 100%. Cap & Trade is not the answer to our problems. I think we need to Cap and Trade-In our elected officials and find ones with a more realistic and less corrupt bill. More content please…
Futurism Now supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax or a tax and dividend system as recommended by James Hansen…. the ACESA bill is weak and it’s not even a climate bill, and it won’t do nearly enough to solve climate change fast enough. Climate goals are meaningless with no realistic way to meet them. Let’s stop going with the flow, everyone…. The flow will get us all drowned with rising sea levels.
James Hansen is a climate scientist, not a policy expert.
Just sayin’.
Sure, but policy experts are purchased more easily than climate scientists who are saying things counter to corporate interest. Just sayin’
James Hansen may very well have become a policy expert, by this point in time. From being a scientist, to being a scientist that was temporarily partially shut up by the Bush Administration (including inadvertent cancellations of his appointments and speaking engagements) to being arrested in a civil disobedience at a coal facility, he may have come that far. Don’t box him in. Don’t just discount him because he’s “a scientist.”
Please point out that carbon capture and storage (CCS–what the coal industry calls “clean coal”) is a false solution that ACESA would subsidize. Unless it’s explicitly demanded that CCS subsidies be removed, the coal politicians will find a way to use them to prop up the industry and prolong our reliance on coal.