The following is a guest essay by Mike Tidwell. It's a response to "The Power of Voluntary Actions," written by a phalanx of social scientists, which was itself a response to Tidwell's "Consider Using the N-Word Less." Tidwell is director of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network based in Takoma Park, Md.
-----
My Sept. 4 essay on the merits of voluntary versus statutory responses to global warming triggered quite a firestorm of debate. Lots of readers agreed with me: All those happy lists in magazines and on web sites -- "10 things you can do to save the planet!" -- actually trivialize the scale of the problem. We'll never solve the climate crisis one light bulb at a time. What we need, à la the civil rights movement, are ten historic statutes that ban abusive and violent practices like the manufacture of gas-guzzling cars and inefficient light bulbs.
Other people -- including a whole panel of PhDs from around the world -- were critical of this point of view. They accused me -- wrongly -- of dismissing altogether the virtues of voluntary change. As I type this essay from my solar-powered house, with a Prius in the driveway and a vegetarian lunch in the oven, I assure you I view voluntary measures as very important. They just won't save us in time, that's all. The Arctic ice is melting way too fast.
Other readers commented that we can't simply legislate our way to positive and permanent changes in human behavior. We need a deeper spiritual approach -- with a big emphasis on education -- to alter the greed and selfishness of human behavior. There's merit to this view, of course -- but it, too, fails to recognize nature's inconvenient deadline: We have to get off fossil fuels right now! We don't have time to change human nature.
In keeping with the civil rights parallel, consider the following hopeful example. In 1960, four black students refused to leave a whites-only lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. Their goal was to change the practice, enshrined in law, of banning blacks from segregated public eateries. And the tactic worked. Within four short years, statutes were passed affecting every southern state and banning this discriminatory practice.
So here's my question: Did those four students completely transform human nature throughout the Deep South in 12 short months? Of course not. They changed the legal structure, which stopped the immediate abhorrent practice and over time has led to serious changes in the racial views and values of Southern whites. I should know. I'm white, was born in Tennessee in 1962, and was raised in Georgia. My Southern world, though far from racially perfect, has been a far cry from the formal apartheid of my parents' upbringing.
Here's the point. Today, like in the 1960s, a majority of Americans are ready for a national transformation. They are ready to address the great moral wrong of our time: global warming. Not everyone is ready. Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe are the George Wallace and Lester Maddox of our day. But a majority of Americans are clearly eager to overcome this wrong-headed minority with national mandates that put our country on a better path.
The problem is we've somehow forgotten how it's done. Martin Luther King famously and repeatedly asked, "Why should we wait one more day for our freedom? Why?" King resisted public pleas to go slow; to let voluntary measures work; to understand that some people just can't change very quickly. No, King said, America must have a new set of laws that address the great moral urgency of now!
So why -- with Arctic ice vanishing, and hurricanes getting bigger, and sea levels rising -- why are we still politely urging Americans to change a few light bulbs and voluntarily spend a little more for a hybrid car? What breakdown in ethical thinking prevents us from insisting that all serious conversations on this topic focus on demanding governmental standards that allow only 50 mpg cars into the marketplace? In other words, given the great ecological, economic, and moral implications of global warming, why should we wait one more day for clean, efficient energy? Why?
Again, I'm all in favor of simultaneous voluntary changes that help grease the market wheels. I voluntarily live an extremely low-carbon lifestyle, and every American who understands the full threat of global warming has a moral obligation to make as many personal changes as possible right now.
But let's not ignore human psychology. When given the chance, only a very small percentage of Americans agree to voluntarily purchase -- at a modest premium -- clean electricity from their local utility. In surveys, those who decline typically say it's not the money. It's their sense of fairness. Why should they be the only ones on their block to pay extra to clean up the air and lessen global warming for everyone else? When asked if they'd support instead a law requiring a greener grid as a whole, with similar cost increases shared by everyone who uses electricity, the customer support level skyrockets.
We are a big, big, ambitious nation now faced with a big, big problem. And we know how to respond in an appropriately big way. We did it during World War II. We did it during the civil rights era. And now nothing short of a Bill of Rights for our life-giving climate will do. A Bill of Rights that bans the bad stuff -- new coal-fired power plants and energy-profligate cars -- while incentivizing the good stuff: wind power, solar energy, and ethanol from switchgrass.
Anything less is to accept the coming slavery of life on a planet ruined utterly by runaway climate change.
Click here to view a bold response to the climate crisis.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:09 am
21 Sep 2007
The difference with the civil rights movement and climatology is that you had one group of people appealing, within the bounds of civilization for rights from another.
Racism was man made and could be changed by man. Climate change is part of nature. Go outside and argue with a rainstorm -- individually or with government assistance -- it won't change anything.
As far as yourself, and myself, we should all use less. But quite frankly, I think we'll buy our way out of the pollution problem in a few years by advances from GM and DuPont -- not from a bunch of people putting flowers in their hair.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:27 am
21 Sep 2007
My take:
Changes will be much deeper and more widespread than we can imagine. There is no one magic fix - no one technological improvement, no decisive piece of legislation, no one approach.
For individuals, the most productive course is to find the area that one knows about, cares about... and get to work on that.
Mutual support networks are key (aka alliances). I may not know much about your particular field, but I can support your work. We need to learn to be good allies (e.g., we don't have to agree 100% with one another; courtesy is an under-estimated virtue).
I'm particularly interested in institutions that will generate and support green thinking. And in new forms of media to get the word out.
Rapid change won't originate in established institutions like corporations, government or mainstream media. New ideas and pressure will have to come from outside. (Case in point: the Democratic Party with about zero original thinking about energy and the environment. On the other hand, they have been absorbing ideas from green groups.)
Individuals and small groups are pioneering sustainable lifestyles. They are living research laboratories, and their ideas/practices will spread rapidly. Examples: eco-villages, permaculture, and Eco-keeners.
At a certain point, demonstrations and civil disobedience are inevitable.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Flamingo Posted 2:29 am
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
Flamingo Posted 2:40 am
21 Sep 2007
I disagree with this. Corporations MAY end up leading the way for federal legislative change, and indeed are FAR ahead of Congress and the White House on this issue especially, and even ahead of large chunks of the public. Not all corporations are Exxon. Most do need to go farther, but there is certainly a green momentum out there. Some corporations will keep pushing the envelope farther and farther towards zero carbon, and the more that works profitably, which I think it will, the more corps will jump on the bandwagon.
And mainstream media is key to widespread change of lifestyle. That's why green celebs are a good thing, and even green eco-mc-mansions to some degree, because if people DESIRE a sustainable lifestyle, then change will happen faster. (I know that eco-mansions are not sustainable, but if people can't afford the mansion, and they CAN afford the eco part, then we're better off.)
I don't think WIDESPREAD change will ever come from outside these two entities. With population at the levels they are these days, and with the media dominance of our culture, it's just not possible any other way. Like I said in another post, change has to come from ALL fronts; outside, inside, small, large, individual, group, public, private, etc etc etc. Every corner.
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 2:48 am
21 Sep 2007
I dunno about that.
Seems like such a measure would undercut NRDC's important work with General Electric ( I believe ) to phase incandescents out over 10 years coupled with conservation measures -- at least according to the news article (perhaps the nytimes).
And NRDC being the "earth's best defense" and "the most effective environmental group", that must be the best course.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:52 am
21 Sep 2007
The oil will burn whether or not we have plug-in hybrids. That oil and gas carbon will be in the air for centuries. The rate of consuming that limited resource will not make a wit of difference avoiding tipping points to run away global warming.
Government subsidies for solar, wind, and ethanol have been a disaster, and have eclipsed actions that work much better, like clotheslines, carpools, mass transit, passive solar architecture,...
Our leaders, Hansen et al, have focused on coal, a resource large enough to kill the world. Existing coal plants must be shut down ASAP. That is much more than talking about new coal plants, carbon taxes, renewable energy... No conditions. Shut down existing coal - NOW.
Normally I ignore background noise, I have time to kill.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:32 am
21 Sep 2007
But air pollution laws have been around since the Magna Carta. The issue was that (1) the King was pissed of because all the trees and game were dying and (2) the locals were suffering because all the trees and game were dying. By God, they invented chimneys and found that wonderful oxymoronic product we now call "clean coal."
Back when steel and iron was king in Pittsburgh in the early half of the 1900's, the air was so polluted that lights were necessary all day long. One went to work with two shirts - one for the morning, and one for the afternoon. By the early 50's, Pittsburgh claimed itself as a "One Shirt City" due to their air pollution laws.
What is freaky is that the federal Clean Air Act was invented in 1970 and signed by a Republican (Nixon, of all people); the 1990 Amendments were signed by another Republican president. Sure, the Democrats might have forced the issue each time, but the fact is that corporations wanted a "level playing field" so all similar businesses would be treated the same. In fact, the corporations and their lobbyists actually wrote the rules!
The result was amazing. Nitrogen dioxide nonattainment areas are gone, and carbon monoxide areas are few. Particulate is many times better than in the early 1970's, although still a problem with "fine particulate" below 2.5 microns (invisible stuff). Ozone remains a problem in some of the urbanized areas like LA and Houston, however. But the results of these national standards are truly amazing, for the most part a phenomenal success - look how cheap sulfur dioxide credits are.
The way early EPA and Pennsylvania regulations were worded was in pounds of emissions per million BTU (lb/mmBTU). Think about it, that's how CO2 should be regulated, since CO2 is linear with BTU input and carbon content. We all like to think in terms of reductions, caps, and fictitious credits, but you need to start with units such as lb/mmBTU. That's what we need to start with. I'm sure the affected industry would love to help.
The tricky part is called "Rate of Progress." In other words, new sources (new cars, power plants, ships, whatever) need to be "x" percent cleaner than the baseline lb/mmBTU emission rates. Using some established frameworks and depending on technology availability, you might have best available, lowest achievable, and maximum allowable, all increasingly stringent.
Folks, back when first proposed, scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators were thought to be the ruin of the smokestack industry - a point which proved wrong, since now they are commonplace. Even anti-mercury catalysts and reagents are becoming the norm in some applications. I don't know why we need to talk specific capture methods such as "sequestration" because once you set the target in lb/mmBTU, it would be up to the regulated community to achieve those standards, given a reasonable phase-in.
That's the voluntary part.
Would such rules create more incentives for wind, tide, and solar energy? I would hope so, since traditional capture methods will be very expensive. In fact, as anybody knows, even since the Magna Carta the goal was to turn air pollution into CO2.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:38 am
21 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
FourLocks Posted 4:08 am
21 Sep 2007
Promoting behavioral changes among private citizens is even more discouraging yet as soon as a landfill disposal ban was made a law, citizens were suddenly concerned about how to recycle their unwanted lead-glass computer monitors. I'm sorry, but I agree with Mr. Tidwell; habits and behaviors change very slowly while laws become effective almost immediately. If you want to see only a few, environmentally-proactive people driving 50 mpg cars, try passionate speeches, web sites and brochures. If you want to see everyone driving 50 mpg vehicles, pass a law.
Permalink
elasticsoul Posted 4:10 am
21 Sep 2007
I would love to take a high-speed train rather than an airplane - but I can't, because our government subsidises aiports and highways rather than directing my tax dollars to rebuilding the train system.
I would love to eat only organic, but I can't because our government subsidises agribusiness industrial farming practices.
I would love to live in a home that is built with natural, local materials and is heated by the sun, but our government subsidises Big Oil so heavily that it is "cheaper" to build particle board cubes heated by mega-energy plants.
The list goes on-and-on, and affects every area of our lives. A carbon tax would favour local manufacturing, as the farther something is shipped, the higher the tax. Cap-and-trade for carbon emissions would favour cleaner businesses. Shifting taxes from income to pollution would give us more money to spend on cleaner products, and would favour cleaner companies.
It is time for our government to start being part of the solution. Big corporations have monopolized control of our elected officials, and it is time for us to take it back.
For my part, I first joined the local Green Party and then decided to run federally, and support for the Canadian Green Party is rising steadily in response to the non-leadership displayed by the other parties.
The time has come to vote with your feet, by supporting only candidates who 'get it' and will do the right thing. United we stand, and so far we have not been. Our elected government is supposed to be an expression of our collective will, and it is not. It is time to make it so.
* Inconvenient Truth presenter
* Green Party of Canada candidate
Permalink
precipice Posted 4:17 am
21 Sep 2007
Today we live in another era. Television can still influence public opinion, but our reporters now equivocate about every issue. "Ice caps are melting and threaten to raise sea levels, but SOME SAY this is normal." We watched the inhumanity of the aftermath of Katrina, but the climate part got lost in the lambasting of our incompetent public officials.
I'm frankly surprised that the heatwaves, floods and droughts of this past summer haven't been packaged more effectively to present the potential impacts of global warming in a more compelling manner. Climate change is always presented as one possible future where no one in particular suffers, but someone (always the other guys) will be affected. Thus, no massive public sense of urgency or outrage.
Permalink
C4nier Posted 4:19 am
21 Sep 2007
When you have ingrained habits and a culture that by purchase power states that the habit is just fine it's a hell of a mountain to climb in changing that habit. I'm not just speaking about meat production. In New England, where I live, many "greens" choose to drive SUVs because they say they need them to access their back woods retreats. Wealthier environmentalists enjoy traveling to far away beautiful green places - via big polluting airplanes. Worst of all, as a society we are so hooked to our cars few outside of the biggest metropolitan areas consider walking, biking, and busing a viable form of transportation - something our Secretary of Transportation did not hesitate to point out recently.
Just about everyone reading this post knows that making personal changes in all these areas would have a large personal impact. Yet we, the most conscientious of our population, aren't even close to reaching a critical mass in driving change. Our consumption culture simply strives to make the individual feel less guilty by offering "green" products, cars, carbon offsets, etc so we can go on consuming. Let's face it, that is all a bunch of bologna. Even holier than thou Al Gore is still a huge consumer of all things energy consumptive. It's time that we draft legislation with teeth to give ourselves a kick in the pants. I think we should start with forcing people who consume to pay for all of the effects and externalities of that purchase. If you start having to pay $10 a gallon for gas you may seriously reconsider your driving habits.
We can either have individuals pay for the direct effect of their consumption, or we can continue to pay the costs as a society.
Permalink
geoark Posted 5:12 am
21 Sep 2007
Important point: Volunteerism is CRITICAL in order to reach the critical mass of VOTERS that will - we hope - understand and enact what must be done (keep reading!).
If we do nothing this will (given global warming, peak oil, international relations) lead to major crisis, heavy-duty police action, dictatorship, loss of freedom and heavy a cost to society. This second "ism", "do-nothingism", leads to "crisis-ism."
A THIRD WAY is to gradually introduce a user fee on oil (oil consumers "use" clean air, etc.) and provide an equal citizen's dividend (an Earth Inheritance) to all via the social security system. We also need to directly tax carbon pollution.
Also, we should use these revenues to remove taxes on labor and capital investment to ensure full employment as our society converts to resource conservation based technological economy. Another part of these public revenues, besides paying for governmental community services should go to buying and protecting wild natural habitat. With the user fee and citizen dividend incentives, our society will very quickly reach the low-balled carbon goals our politicians are suggestion for 2050 and beyond (way too late!).
This third way is called incentivism. This third way will be good for business (think wind energy production), good for social and economic justice, AND be good for the environment. This third way is, probably, the only one that will truly work before we destroy ourselves.
My plea: Please go to web sites that encourage the "Green Tax Shift", the "Environmental Tax Shift", "Incentive Taxation" etc. and support them! And read the book "Tax Waste, Not Work".
http://www.taxshift.org
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:17 am
21 Sep 2007
I laughed when I read that, I know the kind, my ski-loving parents were among them, but happily they're SUV-free now, I like to think partly because of my lobbying!
"Other people -- including a whole panel of PhDs from around the world -- were critical of this point of view. They accused me -- wrongly -- of dismissing altogether the virtues of voluntary change."
When I read Mike's piece I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what he was suggesting. People definitely over-reacted, but no matter, this is a good debate to have. I think, as with almost all movements, from animal advocacy to worker protection to women's rights, voluntary actions and legislation have to go hand in hand, but overall with a greater focus on legislation. That's what I've concluded from all this anyhow.
On another note, nice to see Mike including vegetarian eating in his list of his personal climate-friendly behaviors.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:47 am
21 Sep 2007
I'm talking about power plants over 1000 megawatts that can such down a 100-car, 100-ton railcar coal train in a matter of days, so they need at least two trains a week if not three. I'm talking about refineries that can suck up over 150,000 metric tons of crude from a ship in a matter of a day or two. I'm talking about large ocean-going ships that can burn over 100 metric tons of fuel in a single day. That's a bunch of CO2, baby.
Perhaps I'm missing why we need such an emphasis on consumer CO2 emissions when there is so much that can be done - let's say you had that bazillion dollars we spent on the Iraq War and used it instead to lower large power plant and refinery CO2 emissions. That's called "low hanging fruit."
I think it is a large mistake to start by regulating small emission sources. Go after the auto manufacturers and not the people! Go after agri-business and not the people! Voluntary measures work best with people - build it and they will come. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:42 am
21 Sep 2007
That is what PETA said. The FAO report actually said:
"The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport."
Only 1 out of 10 people drive a car, so doing the math, roughly 600 million car drivers are responsible for about 15% of the planet's GHG. About 6 billion are responsible for the 18% attributable to livestock. (6 billion)/(600 million)(15/18) = 8.33. When you stop driving it is roughly 8 times more effective than not eating meat.
It also says this:
"The livelihood concerns of hundreds of million of poor livestock holders, who often engage in livestock production because they have no alternative, must be taken into account. The demands of the emerging middle class, who are consuming growing amounts of meat, milk, and eggs, cannot be ignored either. Attempts to curb the booming demand for these products have generally proved ineffective"
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
tico89 Posted 11:44 am
21 Sep 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:43 pm
21 Sep 2007
OTOH though, CO2 is very easy to deal with from a perspective of you know exactly how much you're going to get from a given amount of fossil fuels and that it's all emitted. This is not the case with many pollutants. Our usual captive-regulators spend so much of their time and energy trying to measure things that are hard to measure that the end result is to distract everyone from the end goal and to cut pollution far less than we could.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:05 pm
21 Sep 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
JenThang Posted 4:27 am
22 Sep 2007
Sam Wells: Thank you for raising the excellent point that industry is the major culprit in environmental destruction, not consumers. It's about time that we as consumers pause in our self-flagellation and examine who is really to blame. And for anyone who argues that voluntary consumer demand is all it takes, please rent the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The film illustrates the complex forces that stymie adoption of better technology--including government and industry inertia even in the face of fierce consumer demand.
Elasticsoul: Great job pointing out that so many environmentally responsible actions that many of us would like to take (voluntarily!) do not even exist as options right now--because of the political structure that has entrenched environmentally destructive means of transportation, construction methods, and food systems. It's a bit like telling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" when they haven't got any boots.
Geoark: I wholeheartedly agree that voluntary measures are important insofar as they create, as you say, a "critical mass of VOTERS" needed to push for more substantive statutory change. To all the advocates of those lists of "10 Things You Can Do To Save the Earth," where is the harm in adding #11: "Get Politically Involved: Write to your elected representatives, join a group that lobbies for change, and vote responsibly"?
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 12:18 am
24 Sep 2007
I decided that I will collect ANYTHING an individual and/or family can do that will result in less pollution, find a catchy domain name, and create a website.
I have received some criticism for judging the value of some actions, however I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to wait for future generations to do that. We might as well do it ourselves and point out if an action has very little impact and you are not making a real difference.
Please check the site and see for yourself. There is a lot one can/should do. You can make a difference as an individual. I may not involve making a profit for a company though. Being "green" is not good for our economy. Just for you, your wallet, and the environment.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
amc89 Posted 2:52 am
24 Sep 2007
"Attempts to curb the booming demand for these products have generally proved ineffective"
So does that mean we should just give up encouraging people to consume less meat?? Encouraging people to give up driving and flying or drive and fly less has not been that effective but I don't see any enviro groups calling for a stop to campaigns encouraging driving and flying less. I think the problem is that not much resources have been dedicated thus far towards making people aware of the impacts of their diet. If more governments, NGOs, and other institutions worked together to educate people about the importance of eating less meat and helped livestock farmers switch to growing more produce and plant-based sources of protein, per capita meat consumption would go down somewhat. I also think more governments and NGOs should be encouraging people to have smaller families, but that's a separate topic.
Permalink
solar greg Posted 2:13 am
25 Sep 2007
I believe we are reaching a critical mass towards making the changes we desperately need to make if we want to survive on this planet. We have to tackle it from all fronts. Each individual doing his best (not retorically speaking) to do what he can do best. Lobbying, investing, inventing, speaking out! By all means, change the light bulb and please don't leave it on!
It's time for everybody to realize we have painted ourselves into a corner. In our desperation to create "progress, prosperity, comfort" we forgot to Think, where are we headed?
We have gotten into bad habits like travelling huge distances every day, dragging tons of steel around with us (Ineficiently!!!). (They had to find users for that black liquid)
They say a country has the government it deserves. All countries. It's time we realize that if we are not part of the solution, we become part of the problem.
There have to be strict laws (for example) to stop industries from contaminating. That is only done by law.
As far as people's lifestyle, the changes would be so great, that laws made to force so many radical changes would create an opposition so huge that it would probabbly backfire. I suggest real incentives. Not like some that seem to be designed to fail on purpose. I mean incentives that any normal person, with his nose in his wallet would be stupid not to grab. A win-win incentive.
We need investors to supply solar heaters to heat water (huge energy consumption) to heat homes (huge energy consumption) Collect abundant summer heat and store it underground for use in winter. Store winters cold in a similar fashion (not too close to the heat storage) for use in summer.
What I'm trying to say here is that it's not a matter of high technology or even sacrificing comfort or money, You will actually save money and be more comfortable!! What are we waiting for!! Do what you can.
I know energy dependance and greenhouse gas emissions are only part of the problems we need to fix. It's one we can help fix right away without crawling into a cave. If there isn't a solar energy company willing to help you, start your own. It will be a big business to be in, and what the heck, make money. It takes money to do things. Better in your neighbors solar business (or your's) than up in smoke.
Permalink
oriley Posted 8:03 am
25 Sep 2007
Shawn W. Kelly
Permalink
solar greg Posted 1:26 am
26 Sep 2007
I think this is one example where neighbors should get together and Tell their local law makers to change it NOW!
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 8:12 am
29 Sep 2007
Incidentally, i dont know what you've been reading but this is very much a man-made problem. The most recent conclusion of the world's climate scientists is that the current additional global warming is almost certainly man made
Permalink
solar greg Posted 5:09 am
01 Oct 2007
What do you mean by "buy your way out of this problem" You honestly think somebody is going to give it to you for free just because it isn't your fault?
We are all guilty of creating the mess we are in. We can also try to fix it. We need to do what we can and some of that includes making changes in our energy consumption habits. Change bulbs (you must purchase the bulbs), hang dry your clothes when possible (you must purchase the rope), use the toaster oven sparingly (if you don't have one, don't purchase it), etc.
(A man made problem) Of course it is!! What makes you think otherwise?
What do you sugest?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:33 pm
12 Jan 2008
Permalink