rsmolker’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Markets shmarkets....More concerning to me than a market bubble threat is that carbon marketing turns carbon into a commodity, and in general when things become commodities...they become the property of those who can afford! Also of more concern is that the majority of offsets in US legislation are land based - the problems of aditionality, verifiabilty, permanence are...problems for a reason (and that commodification issue spreading to soils, forests etc...). We are rather cleary at the point where restoration of ecosystems has to be done - as well as halting fossil fuel emissions. Both need to happen, not one offsetting the other! And that restoration has to be done regardless of whether we can precisely measure and market the carbon involved!On 'Subprime carbon': Risk or hype? posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RIghtfully, many commenting here are asking "if not the current climate bill, then what alternative are you proposing?" There are many possible answers to that question, from general principles to very specific, but below is something that came to my attention recently from Mike Ewall, of Energy Justice Network, (EJN) who, if he was not tied up in law school currently, would no doubt be a major contributor to all these discussions. EJN works with community groups opposing all manner of dirty energy projects all over the country, and as such has what is probably among the most informed and useful perspectives....Here is what Mike sent a few days ago which provides a nice starting point!!!! I think that our alternative really ought to be more bold than the typical "carbon tax is better" frame. I suggest that we ask for better than a carbon tax, since a carbon tax is fraught with many of its own problems, such as: * not guaranteeing any specific reductions in a relevant time frame; there is no guarantee that making fossil fuels more expensive will bring their use to an end soon enough -- or replace them with clean solutions * by opposing just PART of what falls on the dirty energy side of the energy spectrum, a carbon tax puts nuclear power, biomass/incineration, biofuels and other false solutions at a competitive advantage, which is very dangerous; there's no guarantee that a carbon tax will move us to clean solutions rather than differently dirty false solutions A real solution for climate should look more like this: 1) An Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard that reduces energy demand by 50% in 20-30 years, across all three energy sectors: transportation, heating and electricity 2) A Clean Energy Portfolio Standard that meets the demands of the other 50% with wind, solar and ocean power (and perhaps some small-scale micro hydro or closed-loop geothermal) within the same time frame. The industrial heating sector and the planes/boats transportation sector will be harder to get off of burnable technologies, but there is evidence that energy intensive industrial heating needs like cement kilns can have their needs met by concentrated solar. For planes and boats, perhaps some algae-based biofuels would make sense, but NOT running off of fossil fuel power plant exhaust because we won't have any more combustion-based power plants! 3) Remove all subsidies from fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass/incineration, biofuels, corn and at least half of the military budget (a major oil and gas subsidy) and shift that to energy demand reduction and clean energy development. 4) Set a national zero waste policy, starting with the 75% national recycling/composting goal as pushed by GAIA and the Teamsters. (I could write a lot more on what this would entail, but I'll save that for another time, when needed). 5) Have a climate-friendly sustainable agriculture program, focusing on making all food organic, localizing food production systems and getting people to eat lower on the food chain. 6) Creating a "Superfund for Workers" job retraining program to make this transition possible, targeting the urban and rural communities who are most in need. And, finally: 0) Pushing public campaign financing, like the Fair Elections Now Act(http://www.publicampaign.org/federalaction) because we'll never get ANY decent legislation at the federal level (ditto for the states) without cleaning up our election processes. Clean energy requires clean elections! Some of the solutions above, with a slight bit of additional detail, can be found/inferred from our hierarchies chart here: http://www.energyjustice.net/technologies.pdf and from elsewhere on our Energy Justice website. More links to election reform tactics can be found on our election reform page here: http://www.corporations.org/solutions/electoralreform.htmlOn ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 104 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Starting from this: New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast Of 6.3-Degree Temperature Increase: Washington Post, by Juliet Eilperin, September 25, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092402602.html?wprss=rss_nation. Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges……The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change. This is pretty much a death sentence for the planet. Can anyone out there really believe we should model our response to such prediction after the Social Security Act, pass a half-***ed climate bill and hope that 75 years later it will be improved upon! Climate SOS is not a fringe element working in isolation. During the week of activities in NYC, there were actions associated with the “Mobilization for Climate Justice http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/ in Pittsburgh around the G20, and in California, all opposing the “disaster capitalism” approach to climate change, demanding “Corporations out of Copenhagen, stating “Our Climate is Not Your Business,” and denouncing the inadequate US climate bill. All are critical of the US bill for it’s insistent reliance on carbon marketing, and corporate giveaways (Obama had earlier stated he would insist on the auctioning of permits in a cap and trade system, but now in office he remains eerily silent on the issue). The corporate players poised to profit from the carbon markets and permit giveaways are holding the US and to large extent the rest of the world, by the neck. As Mahonia points out in his/her comment above: the international community is very well aware of the US role in obstructing progress, and (with major help from Al Gore), insisting that the only acceptable approaches to addressing climate change involve carbon marketing. The report launched by IEN a day or so on indigenous people’s opposition to marketing of forest carbon (REDD) is a recent example of how people who are not big players in the market economy (but are big players in holding many keys to real solutions) experience these approaches: land grabs, rights abuses, and in many cases more, rather than less, pollution and ecosystem destruction. A somewhat surprising recent post in Climate Action Network’s Eco points out the international dynamic over carbon market approaches: “Industrialised countries talk about carbon markets and offset mechanisms in particular as if they are doing developing countries a favour, by providing financial flows from north to south. In fact, at least under present mechanisms it is more accurate to say that developing countries are the ones doing the favour – by giving Annex 1 countries a way of meeting their targets on the cheap. And understandably, developing countries fear that the rich world is picking all of their “low hanging fruit”.” Mr Dorner should take a break from his busy schedule and sit down and contemplate deeply what it is he is working so hard to pass through the Senate. Having listened to the original public briefing for CEW, I was amazed when someone asked: “do you think the US climate bill be well received in Copenhagen”. The response from Paul Tewes: “Our role is not to analyze the content of the bill, our job is to get it passed.” Marching Orders. And Mr Weiss: if you are truly content to sacrifice your children’s future, abandon the moral highground as “necessary but not sufficient”…? I strongly advise a month or so vacation in the deep woods, alone. Our tactics may strike some as odd, but time for polite asks and compromising and settling for baby steps is long past overdue. There is just way too much at stake and really, outside of the offices of major polluter corporate headquarter and their corporate environmental group allies, much of the world is not fooled.On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 104 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Celebrating Natural Gas????

  Geez, Bill....Im afraid I cannot party down on behalf of a switch to natural gas, I mean we need to take advantage of any party opportunities that come along, but this is pathetic!  

  For all those participating in the coal action: PLEEZ make sure there is a clear message that natural gas, or "biofuels" are NOT acceptable alternatives and no cause to party!  Unfortunately, if we don't make a clear statement about what we perceive as viable alternatives, we will end up mining natural gas (see ShaleShock.org) or burning up our forests (see Biofuelwatch.org) as a substitute for blowing up the mountains of southern appalachia.  I would prefer something more encouraging that choosing between these varous poisons!

  Rachel Smolker, Ph.D Research Biologist

  On Anti-coal campaign gets some good news, but battle is far from won posted 9 months ago 7 Responses