craig4survival
The Basics
- Name: craig4survival
craig4survival’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
Ken,
Your analysis is clear-sighted and brilliant, as usual.
We need more people to read this, and more importantly, to 'get it.' Time is of the essence.
On 350 vs. 450: The heart of the matter posted 5 months ago 2 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
John,
Your argument is fallacious. The IPCC says developed countries should reduce emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid hitting 450PPM. The EU has committed to reducing emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and will increase that level to 30% if other developed countries (i.e. the US) seek similar levels of commitments. Meanwhile, the poorest, most affected developing countries are calling for developed nations to reduce 40% below 1990 levels, with China stating that they will not agree to binding emissions on themselves unless developed countries reduce at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
So what does Waxman-Markey send Obama to Copenhagen with?
According to a recent report of the Congressional Budget Office, W-M will, best case scenario (assuming all offsets are additional) see the U.S. reduce our emissions 4% below 1990 levels by 2020 (with only .5% below 1990 levels coming outright from the 85% of our economy that is covered by the bill.)
That is worse than sending Obama to Copenhagen with nothing. If the fate of the world did not hang in the balance, that would be downright laughable.
The title of your post left me thinking more optimistically about it then the test.
We cannot get what we need unless we ask for it. And if we ask for what we need, we will likely get less.
So tell me, how can possibly get what we want - 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 (or better, if we are to try to return PPM in the atmosphere to 350 or below instead of 450) if claim as 'good enough' something that is absurdly weak?
It is not the job of the advocacy community to pass bills. It is our job to make it clear what an acceptable bill will look like. We have failed in that task, and now most Americans will think that we will have 'solved' climate change if this bill comes to pass. That would indeed be tragic.
On Waxman-Markey: We’d better try to get what we need posted 5 months ago 3 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
David,
I'm glad you're not freaking out about Waxman-Markey. I'm not either. I think, however, you should be freaking out about the global destabilizaiton that will follow from climate change.
While it's good to know that people in the 'inside' get it, we need to let them know that people on the outside also get it. And people on the outside right now who should be getting it the most, and telling people how it is, i.e. the Big Enviros, are instead cheerleading a false solution and selling it as the key to salvation.
We will only get what we need if we ask for it. That means we push and push and push, and know that we have morality on our side. We have the high ground on this one, and we yielded it before we even tried holding it.
Luckily, those of us on the ground will fix this. So sit tight, and sleep well - the cavalry is on the way. But it's going to take us a few months (wait til late October).
On Why I'm not freaked out about the Waxman-Markey climate bill posted 5 months ago 36 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
I definitely feel the same way about balancing love, life, and activism (trying to preserve a future world where life and love can continue to thrive).
Not sure the best way to strike the balance, but have to try. As you said, what else can we do?
Looking forward to future posts.
-Craig
PS That's one of my favorite YouTube videos of all time.
On Fighting climate chaos with a hammer and a heart posted 5 months, 1 week ago 4 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Very exciting! Good to see the neighborhood getting involved, too!
On In which we chronicle the creation of a groundbreaking eco-home posted 5 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses