In last month's print edition of The American Prospect, Chris Mooney had an article called "This will mean the world to us," about what a new president and Congress could and should do on climate change. The editors asked me to write a letter in response, which is in this month's issue.
It's semi-on the web here, but I think you have to be a subscriber to read it. Here's the full, pre-edited version:
Dear editor,
In his otherwise astute survey of the political landscape around climate change, Chris Mooney takes a puzzling tone toward the advocates and activists who have so effectively pushed the issue forward in the last few years. They have driven positions that once resided on the political fringe to the center of the climate debate. All the momentum is moving in their direction. Yet Mooney scolds them for asking too much. Warns them not to overreach. Urges them to be "pragmatic."
I wonder how many energy industry lobbyists or right-wing think tankers are hearing the same thing from their pundits. My guess is zero. It is only progressives who suffer from the peculiar compulsion to compromise on their core values before the fight has even begun in earnest.
And make no mistake: on the question of auctioning permits under a cap-and-trade system, core values are at stake. If pollution permits are auctioned, the revenue can be used to offset the impact on middle- and working-class Americans. If the permits are given away to large polluters, the policy will amount to a large, regressive tax. While that may be "pragmatic" in a narrow, short-term sense, it is grossly impractical in the long-term. It purchases the support of large polluters at the expense of broad public support -- an unsustainable situation. Only if the costs and benefits are broadly shared will a climate policy prove durable.
Politicians frequently must compromise. That is their job. It is not our job. For those of us who understand the gravity of the climate crisis, the job is to push, and keep pushing.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 6:55 am
02 Mar 2008
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:02 am
02 Mar 2008
From PZ Myers on ScienceBlogs
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/the_problem_wi ...
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 7:50 am
02 Mar 2008
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:56 am
02 Mar 2008
Oops, missed that gate.
Try this: Let's do something to mitigate this disaster before we have to start evacuating cities due to climate changes. It will be cheaper then.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
PJD Posted 9:27 am
02 Mar 2008
From where does your conviction come that auctioning all permits will benefit the working and middle class? I come from this demographic that you say you wish to protect. We know that emissions cuts will be more costly for some industries than others. What assurance can you give a typical working or middle class citizen that the cost of auctioned permits will not force the company they work for to lay them off, or that massive equity losses will not occur in the pension funds they are dependent upon for retirement? Most working class people are far more susceptible to economic disruptions than their better off peers.
Are these not reasonable concerns for a working class person to have? Are they unfounded?
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:01 am
02 Mar 2008
NOT!
Are you kidding? Enviros are routinely ignored in Congress, and have been for decades. In general, people do not vote or give money (for Green purposes) over enviro issues.
What pushed climate change to the political fore?
Business. The same businesses that wanted to make a killing on cap and trade like they made in Europe. And a few businesses that could see an advantage competitively with higher cost carbon (Nukes). Plus, maybe a couple guys thought climate change was real.
PG&E has looked to cash in. So AB32 happened in California. And DiFi, that notorious Green, had a climate bill with Carper, that other notorious Green.
When did Congress pay attention? When BUSINESS leaders showed up for the climate change hearings.
Al Gore gets a clap. UN gets a clap. But nothing would have perculated in Congress if business did not show up.
Smell the coffee.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:18 am
02 Mar 2008
I can't respond for David, but as for your question, ya haveta realize that if we don't cut emissions, the economic effects may eventually be just as bad, if not worse, than any economic downsides from the emissions cuts.
And in addition to the economic downsides that would go with little/no emissions cuts, there's also the environmental, social, and humanitarian effects to consider (which would eventually end up bein' tied with the economic costs).
Trust me, most of us eco-types understand that you're worried 'bout your personal future and job in general, and how this might effect it, and we respect that. However, we tend to look at the bigger picture as a whole on how this will effect society, the economy, and the environment in long term.
And thus, how it may effect the industry ya work in, and possibly even youself personally in the long term.
Permalink
PJD Posted 12:03 pm
02 Mar 2008
Trust me, I'm 100% behind the need for a cap. I am not at all convinced that the working and middle class would be better off with a pure auction system for the permits.
I have heard proposals for a blended system that would start by auctioning a small percentage of each year's permits and gradually increase that number over some period of time to help mitigate the economic disruptions. That seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal to me. I am genuinely curious how someone can be so confident about the right solution, when the economic consequences are so complicated. We perhaps know that Europe's system of cap and trade can be improved upon, but jumping to a pure auction system would seem to have risks. I would hope that those advocating for it have considered those risks.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:01 pm
02 Mar 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:22 pm
02 Mar 2008
grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:55 pm
02 Mar 2008
And yet, many in the electorate, at the primary level, are not discouraged from considering "electability" as an important virtue of a candidate.
And, on the other hand, many in the electorate are strongly discouraged from saying or doing much in favor of such candidates as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and even Mike Huckabee.
So, when is political "pushing" properly "our job," and when is it something we should cease from?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
setb Posted 11:24 pm
02 Mar 2008
Permalink
PJD Posted 1:43 am
03 Mar 2008
I'm not sure if you were intending to address my question. If so, or even if not, I'd reiterate that one of the real concerns of working and middle class people is job security. It will do little good to have part of the increase in energy costs offset if the increased expenses for businesses has caused me to lose my job.
Yes, there are certain industries such as websites that may be low energy intensity and unlikely to have to cut expenses drastically to afford auctioned permits. Yes, there will be some new jobs created in installing solar panels and retrofitting insulation in houses. However, for someone middle aged and above that happens to be in a vulnerable industry, it often is extremely difficult to get these new jobs that usually go to younger workers.
I have not seen Peter Barnes' plan... do you know if he has addressed this concern? I would hope that would be one thing you would want to know before endorsing a plan as "the best way forward". It would seem that a pure permit auction scheme would have the greatest unpredictability for businesses versus either a distributed permit cap and trade or a simple carbon tax.
And to biodiversivist... As for the 40-hour work week... I'm not sure I see the economic similarities to this issue. Not only that, I'm unaware of any regulation that stipulates a 40-hour week... I certainly have worked much longer hours on jobs. Though I would certainly appreciate more explanation if there is some relevant historical experience that would shed light on the economic considerations of structuring a carbon abatement mechanism.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:06 am
03 Mar 2008
Permalink
PJD Posted 3:06 am
03 Mar 2008
Starting a cap system with all permits auctioned immediately puts a very high strain on many industries. A further complication is that most people, at least environmentalists, believe that the developed countries must move first with caps before expecting developing countries to do the same. Many companies simply would not be able to survive if they have to purchase all their permits and yet have to compete with companies in places like China that would not have this added expense.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:26 am
03 Mar 2008
He's referin' to Europe. Europe recently passed a set of regulations establishing 40-hour work weeks in many industries (with overtime increases afterwards). Intially, many of those industries tried to stop the move, claiming that it would harm productivity, and result in layoffs. After it went into effect however, studies showed that productivity had actually increased and there was little, if any, economic downturn followin' the change.
Permalink