Climate
politics is dead-ended.
It may
seem strange to make such a statement in the wake of the much-heralded
U.S.-China climate deal announced November 12. So let me clarify.
President
Obama did announce the intent to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 26-28% by 2025,
while China said it would peak carbon emissions and generate at least 20% of
its energy from non-fossil sources by 2030.
All well
and good, but far from the 6% annual emissions cuts required to hold overall
global warming under 2° Celsius, the minimal borderline between climate
disruption that is merely severe and that which is utterly catastrophic (though
many scientists believe the cutoff is more like 1.5°C). In other words, the
U.S.-China agreement represents only a slower road to climate hell.
Okay, but
it’s a start, right?
“The
agreement with China is a good first step. But we hope it is but a first step
because it is not enough to prevent significant climate change,” noted Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Unfortunately,
it may be the last step possible in the current political environment.
Republican election victories in the U.S. Senate and states around the country
have put legislative progress on global warming into a deep freeze.
Breaking through a dead-ended climate politics will require advancing a bold vision for a low-carbon-society and a plausible roadmap to achieve it. |
In
Washington State hopes for a state climate policy victory with national
implications were stirred by the 2012 election of climate hawk Jay Inslee to
the governorship. Failure to take the State Senate back from Republican
control, despite huge contributions from high-net-worth funders, leaves the
state climate community up against a legislative brick wall. The
governor's climate task force issued its report Nov. 17 lining out options for a
carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system. The governor will certainly try to
achieve whatever he can, but a Senate Republican majority that refuses new
revenue measures is a huge hurdle. A ballot initiative might be the next
step. Polling indicates majority support, but not by a margin that
ensures confidence in the face of what would surely be a tsunami of fossil fuel
industry campaign spending.
So
instead of being a first step, the U.S.-China agreement seems more on the order
of as good as it gets. Politics is sometimes defined as the art of the
possible. The agreement illuminates the boundary of what is possible at
the current moment. The road ends here, at least the road that has been
built to date.
An
absolutely crucial point is that the emissions reductions Obama was able to
bring to the table are the product of victories won years ago by climate advocates
working at the state level.
The Daily
Beast quotes Ethan Zindler, an analyst at Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, “The commitment on the U.S. side is a summation of a
variety of commitments that have already been made. The president can’t go out
and promise new stuff—not even with this Congress, let alone the Congress he’s
going to have next year.”
Instead,
Obama’s pledge was made on the basis of Environmental Protection Agency
regulation of carbon emissions from power plants, and a vehicle fuel efficiency
agreement with the auto industry. Resulting carbon reductions are the
substance of the U.S. side of the agreement. (China’s pledge is also in
line with its expected emissions curve.)
Power plant regulation is the result of a Supreme Court case by
Massachusetts against the Environmental Protection Agency asserting that carbon
dioxide is a threat to human health and thus must be regulated under the Clean
Air Act. Massachusetts, joined by a set of states with pro-climate
politics including Oregon and Washington, won the case in 2007. The
states forced EPA to regulate power plant CO2. And this is not fully secure under
a Republican Congress. Already there are threats to cut off EPA funding
for power plant regulation.
The fuel
efficiency agreement was the product of a very deliberate campaign by climate
advocates to increase state-level regulation of vehicle tailpipe
emissions. A California law that limited CO2 pollution from cars and
trucks opened the door. Because California air pollution regulations
pre-dated federal law, California is legally allowed to make its own
rules. Other states are allowed to opt in. A mid-2000s effort
pushed states to do just that, including Oregon and Washington. The
thought was that if enough states enacted higher standards, auto companies
would no longer find it worth it to manufacture two lines of vehicles.
They didn’t, so Obama had the clout he needed to extract the agreement from
Detroit.
Thus
Obama’s ability to go to China and make pledges rests on victories won in the
middle of the last decade based on political strength in specific states.
The two state-level carbon regulation systems in the U.S. date from that era as
well. California’s cap-and-trade and the Northeast Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative were both enacted in the mid-2000s. That was when there
was still some bipartisan energy behind climate action. The California
system was passed with the support of Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. New York Republican Gov. George Pataki initiated the
Northeast system. That was before global warming became a
cultural-political divide on the order of abortion. Similar victories
today would require a level of unity among Democrats that they so far have not
demonstrated.
So that
puts the question – If we have reached the limits of the politically possible
how do climate advocates expand the boundary? How do we build on what has
been accomplished to enact carbon reducing policies that will avert
catastrophic climate disruption?
The quick
answer is – Not by stepping back or pulling in our horns. But by boldly
lining out the full scope and scale of carbon-reducing changes that are
scientifically required. We need to create a political and moral demand
for a genuinely low-carbon society and economy, with emissions reductions that
match the science. We need to build a vision of that society and economy
that makes sense to people with a plausible roadmap to that destination.
We need
to work in a 2020s and 2030s timeframe, understanding that because we do not
have the political juice to make the big changes now we will need to make even
bigger changes in the coming two decades. We must aim at building the
level of political will and popular support needed to make those changes.
We must put the demand on the table.
It must
be about rapid transition to low-carbon energy, about shifting the electrical
grid to 100% renewables, about powering our transportation system fully with
clean fuels, about making a society that uses energy far more efficiently,
about transforming forestry and farming to soak carbon from the
atmosphere. It must also be about shared prosperity and economic equity,
building social, economic and environmental sustainability in unison.
Because if we don’t work on all three aspects of sustainability at once we are
unlikely to achieve any of them.
Right now
this is a project of building a common vision and roadmap, and communicating it
broadly. Tables must be brought together joining environmentalists, labor, ethnic
communities, faith communities and other progressive constituencies to build
the vision and roadmap. The product must be communicated through
extensive public education efforts that reach the grassroots level. Of course the climate movement should not
give up on incremental changes that can be made now. Any coal plant that
can be shut down, any pipeline of coal port stopped, any improvement in clean
energy policy that can be made will advance the cause. The framework of a
larger, long-term agenda will strengthen all such efforts.
In creating vision and making demands, let us focus on the importance of place. It is hard for people to wrap their minds around abstract global concepts. It is easier to envision what change looks like if it is set in the context of place, of people’s communities and regions. People love their places and are loyal to them in a way that transcends party and political lines. Generating a vision for a better city or state is the ground on which to generate demand a better world. Change at the top begins from the bottom up, as with the coal plant and vehicle efficiency regulations.
This is
not time to pull back but to boldly step forward. Courage and
determination will carry us through if we adopt a long-term perspective and
begin building from the grassroots now. If climate politics is dead-ended
we need to build a new road. Let us create a popular aspiration for
low-carbon places and regions by building visions and roadmaps to get there.
This is the route that is open to us now.
cheap feel to see cheap ray ban sunglasses their eyes more and more despised, and slowly learned to despise themselves are becoming more cheap oakley sunglasses uk and more intense. cheap oakley sunglasses uk Look at you, cheap ray bans looks are very handsome, but a Fei Qi, two immorality, a cheap oakley sunglasses uk broken, penniless, without virtue, almost illiterate. cheap suddenly, pointing discount ray ban sunglasses to a place not far from the amount of shouting, look, there are flying saucers.
ReplyDeleteNew York Party Characters a kids company specializing in performances and character appearances for kids and adults of all ages. Bringing entertainment to all ... NY midgets for hire
ReplyDelete