In one of her first interviews with the national press since being named to office, Lisa Jackson, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, started well in her defense of the need for government action to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. She pointed out to National Public Radio that corporate lobbyists have a long history of melodramatizing the costs of government action to reduce air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, and CFC emissions.
If you look at the history of environmental laws in this country, big ones—because climate-change law, energy law would be big new legislation—every time that’s ever been attempted, the lobbyists out there say, “Oh, that will shut down the American economy, every last one of you will lose your job.” It’s always these hugely overblown doomsday scenarios that overlook the important missing ingredient, which is American ingenuity, American innovation, and the fact that you can indeed build an economy around a move to green energy.Michele Norris
But as the interview progressed, and NPR’s Michele Norris pressed Jackson about the potential cost of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Jackson moved to issuing a weak call for legislation from Congress. She claimed, improbably, that “resistance” to such new laws in Congress was “too strong” a word, despite admitting that opposition was regionally based. She lauded “the great environmental laws we have in this country,” and wistfully said that “it would be lovely to have Congress add one more to the list.”
Her idealism is admirable, but misplaced. She failed to make the common sense argument most likely to move ordinary folks, which is simply that climate change is coming, whether we like it or not, and if we fail to prepare, we will end up spending far more than if we act now.
In the words of The Stern Review:
The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.
Or, as your grandmother might say, a stitch in time saves nine.
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
oracle2world Posted 9:10 pm
02 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:15 pm
03 May 2009
I think you are misinformed on multiple fronts. I'll be kind and assume it is an innocent mistake and not sent here to spread misinformation for readers.
Instead of nitpicking, line by line, let me just clarify two over arching issues you are in error about:1.) CO2 increases may have a lag, and indeed cannot go DOWN from present levels for much more than a thousand years. That's the famous "clogged bathtub effect" reported last year in both a NOAA paper and the Monaco Declaration on Ocean Acidification. But the INCREASE can definitely be stopped. Who are you to negate the possibilities of Copenhagen and our own National legislation before they have a chance? You have no idea what you're talking about. Your negative prediction based on nothing but cynicism is unwelcome.2.) Yes humans, and other species (remember them?) adapt. But the success of that ALWAYS depends on the SPEED of change. Right now we are near 7 billion people. those 7 billion require a certain amount of "relatively normal" type land and climate to grow enough food and harvest enough fresh water. OTHER conditions will not likely support that population. And you certainly cannot compare daily weather swings to large-scale global average temp changes. Your simplistic reasoning on this is dangerous.And finally, it has been responsibly estimated now that a COMPLETE change to non fossil fuels for humanity, within a quick amount of time, would only costs 3% of global GDP. Tell me, how bad would that hurt your financial interests vs. catastrophic global warming?
Permalink
oracle2world Posted 9:59 pm
03 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:35 am
04 May 2009
But I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts:1.) Just because the edges of a body of knowledge are developing doesn't mean one cannot make rational decisions based on the 90% likelihoods that are known in the heart of the subject. Gravity is not completely understood, and yet I bet you would want a parachute before I pushed you out of a plane.2.) Saying that "change is natural" is true. It's also natural that a car accident can decapitate your head from your body. Not only is getting into the car a choice, but so is purchasing the safety package when you bought it.Fortunately, this conversation is academic. Heavy CO2 legislation will pass. You don't get to have that extra 3% GDP in your lifetime, Oracle. Big disappointment, huh?
Permalink