Revamped, Articulated Climate Position from Eban Goodstein

I hadn’t been checking Grist in a while, so I missed these posts from Eban Goodstein that I thought were worth highlighting.

The first, Climate Realism: Too Late for What?, both articulates a fear and frustration I have always felt regarding climate change (the fact that if we don’t accomplish X, Y and Z within, say, the next ten years, we have forfeit a degree of climate security- permanently), and also establishes a new baseline scenario, a new quantifiable foundation for understanding the current situation.  While I would hesitate to call the situation Goodstein outlines ‘comforting’, it is at least a framework that I can use to explain what the quantifiable goals of the climate movement are in the immediate term, and the new world of, frankly, more limited possibility we are entering.

Happy (?) Earth Day!

There are any number of things you can read (or better yet, do) for Earth Day.  Here’s my suggestion, from the Nation, What to Do When the Current Climate Change Legislation Threatens to Do More Harm Than Good:

Is this creature something we can live with and improve over time, as was the case with healthcare reform? Or is the result so hopelessly compromised that it ought never see the light of day?

Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change legislation, all signs are pointing to system failure. Congress urgently needs to pass a comprehensive climate bill, but the current Senate proposal, spearheaded by senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham, threatens to do more harm than good. It is not only inadequate to the task of curbing climate change; it could curtail the power of the EPA and state governments to regulate greenhouse gases–the best avenues for action in the face of Congress’s failures.

The cap-and-trade bill that Obama originally proposed was by no means perfect. It did not even try to meet the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is minimally necessary from industrialized nations to avoid a chain-reaction climate catastrophe. But it did include a key mechanism that environmentalists regard as essential for cap and trade to work effectively: it would have auctioned off 100 percent of carbon credits, rather than giving them away, thereby raising funds that could be used to offset the burden of higher energy prices on low- and middle-income families and be invested in renewable energy.

By the time the 1,427-page Waxman-Markey bill squeaked through the House last June, however, those crucial elements of the Obama proposal had been eviscerated. Waxman-Markey would sell only 15 percent of carbon credits at an initial auction, with the rest doled out to polluters, free. Waxman-Markey also includes other concessions to the fossil fuel industry–most alarming, stripping the EPA of much of its regulatory power over greenhouse gases (see Christian Parenti, “The Case for EPA Action,” in this issue).

The outlook in the Senate is, if anything, worse. At this writing, its final details have not been released, but from early reports it appears that the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill would keep and extend the worst aspects of Waxman-Markey: inadequate emissions-reduction targets (only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020), too many free permits and too many allowances for carbon offsets, which are of dubious value in fighting climate change (see Heather Rogers, “Offset Buyers Beware,” in this issue).

Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would by-pass an economywide cap-and-trade system, opting instead for a bundle of separate energy bills that would slowly phase in emissions reductions sector by sector. Some of these pieces of legislation may pass; others may fail; all are ripe for gaming by corporate lobbies. Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would also skew subsidies in the wrong direction, throwing billions at “clean coal” technologies, nuclear power plants and offshore drilling, a questionable gambit favored by the Obama administration to garner support from Republicans and representatives from oil-, gas- and coal-producing states.

Perhaps most troubling, Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would not only gut the EPA of its regulatory power but could also pre-empt regulations on greenhouse gases from states and municipalities. This would undo the considerable progress made by states like California–which have pioneered emissions reductions for automobiles, and regional cap-and-trade systems–and thwart the efforts of cities and towns to require developers and businesses to adopt clean energy technologies.

In the face of such maneuvers, some green groups, like Bill McKibben’s 350.org, are pushing instead for the CLEAR Act, written by senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins. The CLEAR Act’s cap-and-dividend system, which works by capping CO₂-producing fossil fuels at the source or point of import, is an elegant idea; but its mandatory emissions targets are weaker than what’s needed. It covers only CO₂ (not all greenhouse gases), and one of its prime virtues–that it’s just forty pages long!–means that it leaves a lot of vital details out of the picture. Still, it doesn’t pre-empt the EPA or state regulations, and its leanness means that it’s not laden with pork and industrial giveaways.

Between the two, the CLEAR Act is preferable, on the grounds that it would do less harm and possibly as much or more good. But let’s be very clear: our legislative process–which allows parochial short-term interests and massive corporate lobbies to undermine the long-term common interests–has proven shockingly inadequate to the monumental task before us: the preservation of the conditions of life for much of the human species. For that we will need action on more than just the Congressional front. The vigorous grassroots movement to halt the construction of new coal-fired plants–which Robert S. Eshelman profiles in “Cracking Big Coal,” in this issue–offers a model of what determined, savvy activists can accomplish in the absence of national leadership. But we also need action from the executive branch, from states, cities, businesses and citizens. As it stands, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill would vitiate many of these forums while strengthening the position of the nuclear, natural gas and coal industries. For that reason, we regretfully urge its defeat.

While as of this article’s writing (April 15th) the Senate bill had not yet been released, what they are talking about looks an awful lot like what’s described in this Mother Jones article ominously titled, Kerry: Three Big Oil Companies Likely to Back Climate Bill.  I say ominously-titled because, to say nothing of the fact that the bill described in that article seriously diminishes local communities’ crucial abilities to defend themselves, however meagerly from climate/energy assault (through EPA oversight and locally determined regulation, y’know states rights), frankly my approach to climate is similar to Paul Krugman’s approach to finance: the regulated industries should not be fans of the regulation. The system we are trying to escape from heavily features rank abuse and wanton disregard for human life and posterity, much of which, similar again to finance, is currently legal or effectively so without enforced regulation.  This is a design feature, not an accident.  The system remains so because the industries that dominate it have done everything in their power to maintain control and the current apportionment of power while obfuscating and obstructing the pursuit of truth and justice every step of the way.

If these people (like the Chamber of Commerce, which has long denied climate science and is being courted by Kerry) are pleasantly content with the policy, if they weren’t made to squeal and pay for the crimes they have committed, the policy sucks.

Still working on what that means for where we go from here.

Peace,
Joel

Climate Econ 101

Paul Krugman’s got a pretty decent overview (albeit with some glaring inadequacies) of the economic debate over climate change (namely, as he says, “is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?”)  He introduces in a very basic way the concepts of Pigovian taxes, cap and trade, market (a la cap and trade) v. direct approaches to emissions reduction, the unique problem of coal, problems with models of the costs of action v. inaction, the international dynamics, and other issues.

He barely scratches the surface on a lot of the critiques many environmentalists (and particularly environmental justice activists) have of cap and trade, but he makes a point that could be persuasive (if I stop thinking about the scientific urgency long enough): that in comparing the existing cap and trade legislation to the ideal carbon tax (or other alternative), cap and trade is found wanting because, well, it passed.  To do that it had to get crappier.  The same would happen to ideal alternative policies because our Congress is ‘led’ by these guys.  I’d argue that this is all the more reason the Clean Air Act (which currently has the power to directly regulate GHGs) needs to be preserved (and wielded forcefully, along with the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act), but still, point taken.  Unfortunately, anything that can pass in this Congress is practically by definition insufficient.  Comforting, right?

Anyway, here are some choice excerpts:

But while it’s unlikely that these models get everything right, it’s a good bet that they overstate rather than understate the economic costs of climate-change action…

What you hear from conservative opponents of a climate-change policy, however, is that any attempt to limit emissions would be economically devastating. The Heritage Foundation, for one, responded to Budget Office estimates on Waxman-Markey with a broadside titled, “C.B.O. Grossly Underestimates Costs of Cap and Trade.” The real effects, the foundation said, would be ruinous for families and job creation.

This reaction — this extreme pessimism about the economy’s ability to live with cap and trade — is very much at odds with typical conservative rhetoric. After all, modern conservatives express a deep, almost mystical confidence in the effectiveness of market incentives — Ronald Reagan liked to talk about the “magic of the marketplace.” They believe that the capitalist system can deal with all kinds of limitations, that technology, say, can easily overcome any constraints on growth posed by limited reserves of oil or other natural resources. And yet now they submit that this same private sector is utterly incapable of coping with a limit on overall emissions, even though such a cap would, from the private sector’s point of view, operate very much like a limited supply of a resource, like land. Why don’t they believe that the dynamism of capitalism will spur it to find ways to make do in a world of reduced carbon emissions? Why do they think the marketplace loses its magic as soon as market incentives are invoked in favor of conservation?…

At this point, the projections of climate change, assuming we continue business as usual, cluster around an estimate that average temperatures will be about 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. That’s a lot — equivalent to the difference in average temperatures between New York and central Mississippi. Such a huge change would have to be highly disruptive. And the troubles would not stop there: temperatures would continue to rise…

We’re uncertain about the magnitude of climate change, which is inevitable, because we’re talking about reaching levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not seen in millions of years…

You might think that this uncertainty weakens the case for action, but it actually strengthens it. As Harvard’s Martin Weitzman has argued in several influential papers, if there is a significant chance of utter catastrophe, that chance — rather than what is most likely to happen — should dominate cost-benefit calculations. And utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility, even if it is not the most likely outcome.

Weitzman argues — and I agree — that this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible — it’s tempting to say criminally irresponsible — not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.

We know how to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will.

Brother, that is the anthem of the next… however long it takes for our leadership to stop making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

Joe Romm adds his commentary, with more information on key passages if you want to learn more about specific sections over at Climate Progress.

Anyway, obviously there’s a lot more that could be said, but Krugman’s I guess kinda a big deal, and this is a pretty good intro to where the economics is at.  Which is to say, pretty clear that hysteria about climate action destroying the economy is ludicrous given the degree to which the studies decidedly underestimate the benefits and overestimate the cost.  Enjoy.

Peace,
Joel

Profiles in Awesome, Episode V: Why I Still Like Kucinich (Even Though I Disagree With Him)

My Congressperson, Dennis Kucinich

If you haven’t been following Markos Moulitsas’ twitter feed (and I’m considering dropping it, I get enough snark in my blogroll, other followed tweeters and tortured inner monologue without sifting through his prodigious volume of grade C quipping) or listening to this person, you could be forgiven for not being aware that a lot of people are dumping on Kucinich for declaring that he doesn’t intend to vote for a bill that doesn’t include a robust public option.

Now, I disagree with his decision to vote no; I think that, though it is a horridly compromised bill that turns my stomach when I think of how we got here, it needs to be passed, both to expand coverage in the short term and to preserve the hope that we’re going to get to fight again on the myriad of catastrophic problems and moral crises we need to address (but are failing to do so well).  And also because I agree with Chris Bowers, that we got some decent expansions of public care out of this (and may succeed in actually moving towards narrative shift, which is frankly, the least talked about of one of the most important issues surrounding the success and integrity of Obama’s presidency).

But when I see articles like this, I’m really freaking glad there’s someone like Dennis Kucinich in Congress:

In an interview with the Associated Press, Kerry suggested that his pollution-cutting plans are only an afterthought. “It’s primarily a jobs bill, and an energy independence bill and a pollution reduction-health-clean air bill,” said Kerry. “Climate sort of follows. It’s on for the ride.”

To someone who has, quite simply, reoriented their entire life to fight climate change (and is trying to do so in a way that ensures economic inclusion and justice for those who stood outside the gates of the last economy), and finds profound spiritual meaning in it, this is a smack in the face (and that’s the polite version).  It’s a disgrace to those from Massachussetts (and elsewhere) who believe in him and give a damn about their children’s future and know what an incidental appreciation and pseudo-awareness of the gravity of climate change means for that future.

Dennis Kucinich may not be the best progressive politician.  But he is one of very few in Congress who has demonstrated to me that he doesn’t cavalierly dismiss things I am so young, naive, hopeful, and trusting as to continue to hold dear.  He’s one of the only ones.  And he gets treated like a lunatic because he doesn’t play their cynical game (and yeah, because he says extraordinarily weird shit about aliens, which does not help his case.  I will never claim that he is super savvy).  I can’t help but think that says more about them than about him.  Our political system is, and has been for years, a complete bat-shit bananas crazy house.  Forgive me for having some sympathy for somebody who recognizes that and has the audacity to refuse to play along, highlighting the absolute failure of that system to be what we need it to be.

Peace,
Joel

Cartoons Explain Cap And Trade

"Cap? Trade? CAPTAIN PLANET SMASH MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE-AUTHORITARIANISM!"- my dream hero

Granted there are more sophisticated explanations out there (Climate Progress, Center For Biological Diversity, 350.org, Friends Of The Earth, Sierra Club, and 1Sky can all probably help you), and this is a very contentions issue (about which I really need to do more homework), but frankly, I think cartoons are probably more accessible.  Unfortunately they’re not both on Youtube, so here, unceremoniously, are the links to the cartoons For and Against of cap and trade.

I am pretty skeptical of cap and trade.  I used to be a bit of a Climate Progress (which is pretty pro-ACES and more favorable of Obama than I am) true believer, but the more I watched health care and other progressive battles the less I was able to completely buy its coverage.  I will wholly admit though that I’ve got a lot of learning to do to dig into each sides’ argument.  Cartoons are a great first step.

Peace,
Joel

Pre-New-Year Wrap Up

Much better than baby new year.

I’ll be heading to Boston (where I promise not to ever bring up politics, or say anything objectionable, for my own sake as much as yours) for New Years, so I thought I’d post a few final offerings on two of the most important legislative things on our plate before I go.

The first is a post by Chris Hayes on the remaining public health care in the bill.  While I still agree with David Sirota, that there’s a great long-term value of insisting the health bill is not enough, I do feel compelled to point out the things that remain in the bill worth fighting for: no denial of coverage, Medicaid expansion, community health centers expansion (thank you Bernie), and the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Program.  I do also think the bill is unacceptable if it contains Stupak language, and I hope that ladies in the House kill that fucker if it does (sorry Marcy, gonna have to part with you respectfully and vehemently on this one.  Stupak- you’re a dick.)

Here’s also Chris’ post on upcoming climate work, taking the lessons of health care to heart.  He makes the point that the most meaningful climate action we’ve seen so far has all come from the executive branch, and that we should focus our attention on Obama’s power to implement climate solutions (Part II here, and seriously, read the paper Paul references- it’s very good.)

Finally, this song rules:

Peace, and Happy New Year!
Joel

350 Coverage From NYTimes, HuffPost, Grist, LATimes, and Kucinich

No commentary now, there’s a lot, but I’ll post more as they come in:

For the most up to date news, check out the 350 twitter feed.

Here’s Andy Revkin at New York Times, classic looking for a controversy- fair and balanced.

Keith Harrington over at Grist, from Chesapeake Climate Action Network, on how 350 heralds a new level of global event and organizing.

Huffington Post has pictures and a brief overview.

LATimes on West Coast actions

And of course, classic Northeast Ohio idealist (realist?) Dennis Kucinich will be sending a letter around the House to get signatories to tell President Obama to endorse a 350 target.  Gotta love him.

Exciting Action Opportunities PLUS Related Victories To Help Keep Motivated

It’s been a while since I’ve used this blog to highlight opportunities for civic action because I’ve seen the role of this blog changing and haven’t been sure where it fit in.  But I found three awesome ones almost all at once this week and thought it would be good to bring them up, both because they are three of the most important fights progressives are taking on these days and because they showcase a few different organizing strategies that I think are really interesting/inspiring.

I also included a matching success for each action opportunity to emphasize that this action does have ramifications.  Especially with health care, the tenacity of the public option can only be explained by its dogged defense by progressives- especially the netroots and labor (which is also pushing great action on financial reform).  So remember yall, while this shit can be really depressing (and I think you might not be paying enough attention if you’re not pissed off and discouraged at least some of the time), it’s also important to remember there’s a reason to keep fighting- because it fucking works:

Consistency FAIL! Supporting ACES and Fighting a De-Publiced Health Care (Part 2)

Yesterday I claimed that one reason not to stand in the way of ACES (but to do so on a dropped public option) was because with ACES there was too much fragmentation among the legislators and the base and not enough urgency or agreement to rally the troops around a single policy battle. With the public option there is enough unity and urgency to mean that this fight has a shot at winning, an opportunity we passed up with ACES. The rationale here was political pragmatism.

Today I look at the ramifications of insufficient ACES passage vs. insufficient health care passage and argue that the consequences of passing insufficient health care are more severe than for ACES due to what I’d call ‘policy inertia’, the difficult-to-predict delayed effects of each.

Consistency FAIL! Supporting ACES and Fighting a De-Publiced Health Care (Part 1)

So I was thinking more about what I told people to do yesterday, and it occurred to me that it was the exact opposite of what I suggested informally to friends and family (Citizen Obie then out of commission) earlier this summer regarding the American Clean Energy and Security act, ACES, or as I think of it, the Waxman-Markey clean-energy-palooza.

Way back on June 26th, when the rest of the world was freaking a shit over the passing of Michael Jackson, I was freaking a shit over wonky policy minutiae, and told many of my friends to call their representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms to vote for ACES. ACES passed the House and is moving on to the Senate in… well, we’ll see.