Get Energy Smart! NOW!

We live in a “time of consequences.” We, as individuals and collectively, are setting the path which will determine the living conditions for millenia to come.  This time of consequences is both long term and quite immediate.

This is true for the individual. Do you invest in an energy efficient future life? Will you unplug the computer before going to sleep?

And, it is true for society.  What is the transportation infrastructure we want 30 years from now? And, what is the legislation that will emerge in coming weeks and months related to energy, farming, and Global Warming?

We live in a Time of Consequences.  And, we can chose to live through this time, buffeted by the consequences, or we can seek to act to drive change in a positive direction.

Global Warming

There remain those (not just on Fox News) who deny that something is happening and that humanity is a driving factor. But, the tide has turned on the Skeptical Sea. People are asked to deny their lying eyes and reject the evidence of change, which are ever more evident in our own lives.  While we must continue the momentum to isolate Deniers even more, the real battle turns to “what should be done”.

Global Warming should not be a partisan issue. It truly shouldn’t be.  The true “partisan” debate should be, as per the Kerry-Gingrich debate of early 2007 (before Newt went Drill, Baby, Drill wild and reneged on any sense of sensible engagement on climate change issues), on what are the right approaches to tackle the challenges, to rise to our responsibilities in this time of consequences.

Enegize America has been an attempt to develop concepts to address that question. Since the presentation of EA2020’s 20 act plan at Yearly Kos 2006, events have overtaken that plan. While still rich in its holistic approach, with some unique concepts, and innovative in its development process, the growing recognition of Global Warming (including ever more fearful scientific understanding of the situation) and Peak Oil combined with the reality of Barack Obama in the White House and Democrat control of Congress have combined to make the original plan’s objectives seem timid.

Timidness … compromise … working to get through what will be passed … That is the real risk re Global Warming legislation that the United States, international society, and the future face in immediate future.

The NRDC had a fact sheet on 2007 Global Warming legislation.  It opened:

It’s too late for half measures. Scientists say that we need to turn the corner on global warming soon or we’ll reach a tipping point when it will be too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming pollution. We can’t just dip our toe in the water because the longer emissions continue to grow, the steeper and more disruptive the cuts required later will be. We can’t wait any longer. We must take bold legislative action today.

Sadly, two years later, we have yet to take that bold legislative action.

A real concern …

When it comes to “Global Warming” legislation, who seriously believes that we will be able to drink at the trough multiple times? That if a GW titled piece of legislation is passed by Congress and signed into law, that it will be possible to invest the effort and convince ‘moderates’ to pass another Global Warming act just a few years later?

As per Stoller, passing a weak or inadequate bill is

worse than nothing.  If you pass a big piece of legislation, we’ll have to wait at least five years before understanding it hasn’t worked, which is five years we don’t have.

This is a one-shot opportunity.

We get it wrong, the consequences will last generations.

We must get it right.

Progressive Vision of Global Warming Legislation?

But, what does it mean to get it right?  What is “good” Global Warming legislation?

There are the technical characteristics: most critically, a massive turn-around of US GW emissions and a path to ‘export’ our successes around the world.  The NRDC fact sheet provide a reasonable short hand listing of these critical factors.

But what is “right”?

There are three core principles that should be core to any climate legislation:

1. Scientifically Sound. The legislation should have targets in line with scientific advice and have paths for strengthening (or, less likely, weakening) as our knowledge improves over time.

2. Polluters Pay: Just as when you take a mattress to the dump pay a dumping fee and/or pay the salaries of the hard working people come up the street in a trash truck to take your garbage, polluters should pay for putting poison into the air.

3. Social Equity: Any bill should, at the worst, not hurt social equity (in the US and globally) and, better, held address environmental justice and other equity issues.

Sadly, at this time, it is hard to say that the current lead legislation (the Waxman-Markey ACES legislation) meets these criteria. Thus, we wait with baited breath the recently announced as delayed Boxer-Kerry climate bill.

But, what is right?

Al Gore was (is) right. Addressing Global Warming should not be a partisan issue.  It is a moral issue, a challenge for our generation(s) and future generations to come.

Thus, what is right?  Is there a single “guiding” principle for judging Global Warming legislation in the weeks and months to come.

Let me try one:

Does the legislation address Seven Generations of Society or Seven Years of Economy?

What are core issues in that question?

• Society or Economy? Too often, people falsely argue Economy vs Environment (for my thoughts, see: E2 Solution Path), that taking action re Global Warming would hurt the economy. While false, this makes “economy” (defined in traditional economic terms) as the central decision point.  Should it not be “Society”?  What is good for society, for societal interests?  Economy matters, but is this not a subset of something greater?
• Time: Seven Generations or Seven Years? Does the legislation sacrifice the future for the near-term?  Will the legislation’s approaches provide a path for mitigated (reducing) Global Warming to enhance the opportunities not just for the near-term, but for innumerable generations to come?

What is the moral and ethical basis for the legislation?  Pocketbook or Society?  Enriching the few or Protecting the Many? Today or Today and Tomorrow?

What will be at the core of the legislation?

Thus, when Boxer-Kerry is issued, I (for one) will read it with this question in mind:

Does the legislation address Seven Generations of Society?

Note: This is a modified version from a piece written before the debut of the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act in August 2007.