April 9th, 2009 · Comments Off on Thinking about Climate Equity
Too rarely, it seems, is the discussion of tackling global warming strengthened by an understanding and discussion of climate equity issues. The new Climate Equity Alliance should help to shift that discussion.
Recently, an acquaintance sent me a set of questions.
I’m no expert on the issue and I’m wondering what are other examples outside of Katrina where the cost of inaction will disproportionally fall on the poor and people of color – in the U.S. and globally? If we don’t pass bold climate legislation to stop global warming, wont energy prices continue to rise regardless? And global warming will continue to lead to more heat-related illness and death for folks who can’t afford to cool their homes, etc? Katrina was such a unique situation, what are the other more daily things we can point to, where an average person can say yeah, that would be a terrible burden on poor, low-income and maybe even middle-income folks?
Join me after the fold for my faltering attempt (the email that I sent) to answer these.
E3 (economy, energy, environment) presents us all with very significant, even daunting challenges. Tackling these challenges right also represents great opportunity to come out, at the other end, stronger than we are today. Formed by more than two dozen organizations, the Climate Equity Alliance is a voice to see that we, collectively, pursue solutions to seize opportunity and to help assure that climate solutions lead to a stronger society, to greater social equity, rather than creating even more societal stresses and worsening the rich-poor divide and weakening the middle/lower-middle/lower-income individuals and communities across the country.
Those who are truly concerned with the future of our planet, and our people (both in the short and long term), must be a voice for strong climate legislation that protects and offers opportunity to all Americas.
The Climate Equity Alliance has stepped up just in time, to be that voice.
Adding to the pile, yesterday, two Washington Post pieces sought to correct George Will’s deceitful statements in regards to global warming issues.
Andrew Freedman, Capital Weather Gang, Will Misleads Readers on Climate Science — Again, directly addresses The Will Affair and provides a Washington Post employee, on the record, documenting fault with George Will’s deceit.
Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan, New Data Show Rapid Arctic Ice Decline: Proportion of Thicker, More Persistent Winter Cover Is the Lowest on Record, begins: “The Arctic sea ice cover continues to shrink and become thinner, according to satellite measurements and other data released yesterday, providing further evidence that the region is warming more rapidly than scientists had expected.” They include in the article a direct comment about George Will, calling this report a direct contradiction of one of George Will’s deceits. As discussed after the fold, have to wonder whether there will be a correction to Eilperin’s and Sheridan’s story even though there has been no formal correction to George Will’s more egregious and repeated deceits.
The Western Business Roundtable continues its contribution to deceiving Americans about the opportunities before us in a move to a clean energy future. An analysis of the latest piece of deceptive truthiness from Eternal Hope. Earlier GESN posts re WBR:
Even Republicans are getting disgusted with Republican deceit. The “Republicans for Environmental Protection” issued a press release calling on Republicans to abide by more honest economic analysis and state that Republican tactics are “a disservice to Americans”.
Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively.
Reading through this press release (after the fold), one really has to wonder how the authors wake up in the morning, look themselves in the mirror, and continue to call themselves Republicans in the face of 30 years of ever-worsening conditions for “moderate” voices and people basing their thinking on energy/environmental (and other) issues based on reality within that Party.
Moving out smartly on dealing with climate change has huge benefits from creating jobs, to improving health situations, to improving national security, to so many other things that it almost doesn’t even take the implications of catastrophic climate change to drive thoughtful people to the conclusion that energy efficiency and renewable energy are the path to go. Yet, as John Podesta put it forcefully the other day, “Let me remind you, the cost of doing nothing is far more expensive than doing something.”
The Republican campaign to kill clean energy legislation uses the names of respected organizations like the Congressional Budget Office and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and then distorts their trusted analyses. It takes the gloom and doom predictions from industry-hired consultants like Charles River Associates to prey on fears of hard-working Americans over the future of our economy.
And while the Republicans are offering no real alternatives, this energy misinformation campaign assumes that no actual benefits will result from moving to a clean, energy efficient future or from reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. It assumes American ingenuity and technological innovation are dead. It depends on recycling all the stale arguments and policies that have led to America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil and harmed our national security.
Earl is not alone in his outrage. Even Republicans are getting disgusted with this deceit. The “Republicans for Environmental Protection” issued a press release calling on Republicans to abide by more honest economic analysis and state that Republican tactics are “a disservice to Americans”.
Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively.
One of the heartening elements of the past few months, with some (sometimes notable exceptions): the stream of competent to highly competent, morally strong to highly morally strong people who have been nominated for and moved into Obama Administration positions.
If confirmed in her EPA job … she will immediately face the task of reviewing ”a series of controversial Bush-era clean air regulations that have been sent back to the agency by federal courts,” while moving to complete mercury and clean-air interstate regulations, to curb power plant pollutants.
”She understands not only all the issues involved in air pollution and global warming but has seen them from a state perspective as well as a national one. Obviously, there’s going to be a huge amount on her plate,” Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell. ”In all these cases, she is very familiar with them because Connecticut has been on the receiving end of a lot of emissions from other areas.”
In her statement to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, McCarthy showed that she doesn’t just have the expertise, but also the passion for the tasks before her.
“Climate change, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, has the potential to rob my children … and to rob all of our children of their rightful future. So my deliverable, if confirmed, will be clean air and federal leadership on climate.”
25+ years of experience and a passion for protecting her children and, by extension, mine.
Will the steady drip … drip … drip of very to extremely competent people being appointed ever cease? Will the chorus of informed and passionate voices joining the Administration fade away? We can hope that this will only occur if (or when) President Obama runs out of positions to fill.
Whenever George Will sets his pen to paper with words “climate change” or “global warming” anywhere on the page, the BS detector alarms should be going off. In today’s Climate Change’s Dim Bulbs, Will launches deceptive broadsides at compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), using “facts” to pander truthiness and confuse the public discussion on energy issues. In this case, his column pulls mainly from a marginal NY Times article examining the mixed record of CFLs. (Why marginal? In short, because it upfronts shallow problem discussion, via anecdotes, perhaps as a teaser, with the substance toward the back end of the piece not fully balancing the hyping of concerns upfront. A useful piece for those open to looking toward improving the situation, which isn’t perfect, and also a useful piece for Luddites like Will.) [Read more →]
April 1st, 2009 · Comments Off on Core Principles in Face of Warming World
Energy and Global Warming are complex, multifaceted, deep subjects. They are beyond the ability of any single person to totally master. And, a great challenge to those focused on them is seeking how to communicate, in a meaningful way, to those who don’t have the ability to dedicate huge chunks of time to learning about the issues.
When it comes to Global Warming, ever more of the Globe is aware. As some say, Katrina opened the door, Al Gore strode purposefully throught it, and now people realize that we need to do “something”. But, defining that something became the next and, perhaps, even harder challenge.
Barack Obama clearly ‘gets it’. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Markey, Chu, … We now have adults in charge in Washington.
When it comes to energy and climate legislation, what are some basic core principles? After the fold, I offer three … [Read more →]
Representatives and Chairmen Ed Markey and Henry Waxman released the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) as a discussion draft yesterday. Speaking in a bloggers’ call on the bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi emphasized that acting on climate change is her “flagship issue” and that this is justified not just on national security, health and economic concerns, but in terms of the “moral issue to preserve God’s creation”.
Not surprisingly, even if they have to lie about it, the Global Warming deniers and fossil fools have a very simple, disciplined, and false message: tax and cost when it fact this truly an issue of jobs, benefits, and opportunities. By seeking to distort the situation beyond belief, it drives one to ask the question:
As Speaker Pelosi puts it, “the agents of the status quo will try to hold us in place”. When hearing talking points about why we can’t act on global warming or for a need to weaken legislation, it is worth pondering Speaker Pelosi’s words: “We need to understand whether someone voicing concerns is discussing a reason or an excuse.” There are people, people who are going to demand a voice in this bill, who aer simply not going to vote to reduce US emissions basically no matter what. They will have seemingly reasonable “excuses”, that they will seek to call “reasons”. And, they will have truthiness (lies) that they will not cower from repeating, time after time.
Sadly, it seems that this bill has sought to accommodate the “concerns” of at least some who search for excuses, rather than coming to the table with reasons.
This is appropriately described as a centrist bill, seeking to satisfy as large a constituency (and as many constituencies) as possible. Joe Romm gave it a B+ on first impression: an A in energy arena and B- in the climate arena. Also on first impression, this seems to be grading on a curve.
The bill (some material/links after the fold) has a reasonable target for a 25 percent nationwide renewable energy standard (RES) by 2025 and increasing targets/paths for energy efficiency. (Although, as per most of the time, the 25% by 2025 has a heavy energy efficiency option.) These are the sort of measures that will create a lot of jobs, improve US competitiveness and security, save households and businesses money, and, oh by the way, help save the planet’s habitability for humanity. Some good material, first glance in the B+ realm.
When it comes to the “climate” part, however, it seems that Representatives Markey and Waxman have made the compromises before the bill was even introduced: even though there will be major efforts to weaken the bill when, if anything, it requires significant strengthening. There are allowances given away, too many offsets, inadequate targets for reductions, … This looks, again on first glance, as a solid C (when considering the lead authors). We can hope that this is not a final grade. In many ways, the title of Greenpeace’s release captures the core point: Waxman-Markey Draft a Good First Step, but Improvements Needed.
Sadly, again, does anyone expect the core House effort and discussions in the Senate focused on strengthening the bill to deal better with global warming and be even more powerful in job creation? Or, will the battle come from fossil fools seeking to derail and otherwise disrupt action on Global Warming? The draft, again on first glance, does not seem to do what is necessary.
Due to lies, lies, lies coming from opponents of action and shifting polling, some see it as impossible to introduce a bill that would do what is necessary. Anothe perspective;
Why not introduce a bill that
Meets scientific guidance,
would enable the necessary changes,
would maximize the economic and jobs opportunities?
And then force “opposition” to fight against what is necessary rather than compromising away many necessary elements before the bill is even introduced?
