Climate Action Blog

Jon Stewart vs. Al Gore: “Your Move, Sir”

Kristina Haddad — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:42:00 -0500

BY JENNA CITTADINO, CLIMATE POLICY PROGRAM ASSOCIATE

Last week Jon Stewart interviewed Al Gore on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart about Gore's new book, Our Choice. (Our Choice is the follow up to An Inconvenient Truth and lays out solutions instead of simply explaining the problem, but please note I have not yet read this book.) I saw something that you rarely see on The Daily Show-Stewart challenged a liberal democrat about a cause on which he agrees, and the interview resembled an intense chess match.

Stewart shared that he believes the science, he has read the books, but he, "Still [doesn't] know what to do." Why isn't there a quick fix?

I found the interview very insightful to what the general public is probably feeling. An Inconvient Truth was released in 2006. I would argue that it was the film that made the general public aware that global warming and climate change is a real problem that we need to fix now. Three years later, the problem is not only still in existence, but getting much worse. I believe people are frustrated that there is a problem over which they have such little control.

First off, Americans needs to feel empowered to combat climate change instead of simply feeling frustrated if we are really going to fix this problem. Each and every one of us has the power to assess our daily lifestyle and calculate ways to decrease our carbon footprint by saving energy and using less resources (and saving money!). Tiny changes in our lifestyles can lead to major impact. (Take the 20% in 20 Days Challenge and reduce your own carbon footprint 20% in 20 Days by incorporating these Climate-Smart Strategies into your daily lifestyle!)

Second, any great change takes time. Our country has spent years developing our technology and building our economy not realizing the impact we were making on our planet. Now we understand the danger of our actions and it is time to reverse that impact through new and improved clean technology. I, like Stewart, would have loved to see this change happen three years ago and witness this problem solved, but realistically that cannot happen.

When Stewart challenged Gore about the "one great solution," Gore rattled off statistics about how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis. But what I missed hearing was Gore expand about the many different solutions that are in existence today. I also would have liked to see Gore point out that by transitioning to clean technology we are developing the green economy and creating many new jobs (such as building an infrastructure to transmit solar energy), much like Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps did to help America out of the Great Depression.

In conclusion, this challenging time is actually a huge opportunity for America. Stewart set up Gore to give the public not only some answers but a bit of hope during this bleak time, but since Stewart won the chess match, it was not only Gore who felt defeated, but the many Americans who witnessed the interview.

Why Does Oklahoma Want To Drown New York?

Terry Tamminen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:00 -0500

As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.

It's a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doest cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs).

Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn't take away a single job from anyone.

It's misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.

As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - - Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.

In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.

"I'm sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won't find much consolation in green welfare programs," said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!).

Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe's positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn't like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn't have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21^st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.

Patterson’s Bold Carbon Gamble

Terry Tamminen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:00 -0500

California's state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York's some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Patterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.

So faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York's case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.

Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial "allowances" for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs.

That's where Patterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state's $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state's budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won't be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some "green" friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.

But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Patterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same, just as the "cash for clunkers" program helped car dealers.

Of course Patterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum "tax shift", it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.

Climate activists' immediate reaction to Patterson's move was negative, but perhaps it's worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Patterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.

Performance Anxiety

Terry Tamminen — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:57:00 -0400

It's not just the ads showing a baby-boomer couple sitting in matching bathtubs on a beach at sunset where you can find performance anxiety these days. Try looking in the hardware aisle and at the gas station.

Rather than ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, for example, California lawmakers set an efficiency performance standard - - which was adopted by the feds - - so in 2012, you won't be able to buy energy-wasting bulbs. That spurred Phillips to develop and market their "Halogena Energy Saver" incandescent bulb that is 30% more efficient than conventional versions. The performance standard approach - - instead of government picking winners and losers - - clearly worked for both environmentally minded policy makers and bottom-line minded businesses.

The stealth performance standard that will hit another part of daily life - - your car - - relates to gasoline and diesel fuel. California adopted a "low carbon fuels standard" that says the carbon content of fuels sold in the state must decline 10% by 2020. Fuel sellers can achieve that by slashing emissions from refineries ahead of other carbon regulations; by blending petroleum with lower carbon-content fuels like sustainable biofuels; by selling non-carbon fuels like hydrogen; or anything else that reduces the carbon content of the total portfolio of fuels sold.

Senator Barack Obama embraced making this a national standard almost two years ago and many lawmakers of both parties like this technology-neutral, competition-enhancing approach to reducing carbon. Chevron, Toyota, and several others also have endorsed this approach, because it allows them to find the cheapest ways to comply with the policy goal and perhaps to develop solutions they can market to others. Nothing like a good profit motive to accelerate public policy.

Of course this spells trouble for companies that are hoping to market fuels made from high carbon-footprint sources like the Canadian tar sands. Given that it takes up to four times as much energy to extract and refine that gunk into anything useful, it's a sure bet the resulting products won't find much of a market if fuel sellers are trying to lower the carbon content of their products. An online investor news service has a list of stocks that are exposed, at least in part, to this significant/growing liability - - may be a good list to keep handy of stocks to avoid:

http://www.oilandgasstocknews.com/OGSN/StockList.asp

Based on the successes of the performance standards approach so far, academics and policy makers around the world are looking for more ways to use them, instead of prescriptive bans or mandates. At least in some human endeavors, it seems performance anxiety can be a good thing.

Carbon Poker

Terry Tamminen — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:38:00 -0400

I had a dream about watching one of those high stakes poker games that you see on TV these days. There were bit players who you knew, from the few colored chips in front of them, would soon fold - - but the two "whales" at the table were Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. They each had so many chips on the table that you could barely see their cowboy shirts, but the purpose in their deadly stares could not be obscured, even by the dark black Ray Bans that shaded their eyes.

Obama wasted no time putting his ante smack in the middle of the green felt for all to see - - roll back greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% lower by 2050 (a statement made just 14 days after he was elected). Hu countered with a commitment to reduce energy consumption by 20%. Cards were dealt and the players tugged on their caps (Hu's read "Made in China" and Obama's proclaimed "Copenhagen", an obscure reference to either the failed Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics or the upcoming climate talks).

The American Prez made the first bet - - adopting California's greenhouse gas limits on tailpipes as the national standard. The crowd murmured as they realized this meant he was betting on executive power instead of Congress. The Chinese Prez countered with a commitment to replace 15% of dirty fossil fuels with clean energy, like wind and solar, by 2020. The crowd gasped audibly, realizing that this would double China's current renewable energy supply.

Mr. Cool and Mr. Harmonious took and tossed cards, each betting bold plans to measure and register greenhouse gas sources; out-compete each other on a carbon market; and save more trees than anyone thought possible - - raising the stakes higher and higher, a pile of loot that made it hard for one to even see the other, let alone get a real read of their respective poker faces. Aides tugged at the sleeves of each man, whispering words of advice or caution, but the shrewd observer knew these competitors needed no guidance - - they were playing for keeps.

As often happens in dreams, reality and fantasy merged - - the closer I looked at the loot on the table, the more it resembled a blue, spinning globe. Were the Presidents playing for wealth, the future of a planet, or both?

I awoke with adrenaline pumping, the final result unknown, wondering if anyone else had distilled the words and deeds of these two world powerhouses into anything resembling my dream, or if most people had failed to see the high-stakes poker game that was going on in world capitals, UN speeches, and government announcements day by day. The media has largely failed to add up what's going on in both countries already, which allows Hu and Obama to make these pledges, so how would average citizens or investors know?

Yes, carbon will soon have more than a penny-ante price, but if we play the game shrewdly at Copenhagen and beyond, this may be a game with many winners and a dream for a more sustainable, resilient economy come true.

Terry Tamminen gives voice to the Climate Change Challenge

Kristina Haddad — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:34:00 -0400

The British Embassy recently asked New America Foundation Climate Policy Director Terry Tamminen to take part in their 100 Voices in 100 Days dialogue on climate policy. In this short video, Terry discusses both his personal efforts and that of states across the country, dedicated to fighting climate change. He also highlights the ability of new technology to both reduce the carbon footprint and stimulate the economy.

In the 100 days before international climate change negotiations open in Copenhagen, the British Embassy in Washington DC will highlight the voices of 100 people who feel action must be taken to prevent dangerous climate change and put the world on a path to a low-carbon future. Each day for 100 days until the conference starts, they are showcasing one person or organisation's thoughts on how the world can successfully deal with climate change - in 100 seconds of video.

To view Terry's video click here.

The Myth of Battery Cars

Terry Tamminen — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:31:00 -0400

As the world beats a path to Copenhagen for the December 2009 UN meeting to craft a new deal on climate change solutions, one of the biggest challenges remains our addiction to oil. About 40% of global greenhouse gases come from oil, when you include exploration, development, refining, transportation, and combusting it. A few years ago, the US government hailed corn-based ethanol as the alternative/savior, but when food prices skyrocketed because of a misguided policy to subsidize farmers (and when science showed the greenhouse gas benefits were small or non-existent), the rush was on to find another magic bullet.

Now the US government, led by Energy Secretary Steve Chu, has put on their Don Quixote armor again and is pouring lots of taxpayer dollars into batteries for cars. While I am the first to say there will be no silver bullet, only silver buckshot - - we need ALL alternatives to oil - - it's time to dump the battery-powered car in the same policy landfill as corn-based ethanol.

First, Chu admitted to Congress that it would take billions of R&D funding and many years to develop batteries that are practical for cars in everyday use. He was being optimistic, given the laws of physics - - there's only so much you can reduce the weight and charging times for batteries, not to mention the scarce and toxic materials needed to produce them. And car engineers spend lifetimes taking a few pounds out of a car to make it more fuel efficient, regardless of how it is powered. Why would we want a fleet of inefficient cars that carry around half a ton of excess luggage?

Second, this notion that battery cars require no new infrastructure is nonsense. A recent article in Science magazine highlighted the need for more powerplants, transmission lines, and home/office chargers to serve even a small % of the transportation fleet, if it was dependent on battery recharging. As an example, the Tesla battery sports car takes 37 hours to recharge with normal household current and 8 hours if you install a special high-voltage charger that costs thousands of dollars. Moreover, on a hot July day in California, if even a few hundred thousand of the state's 30 million vehicles were attached to the grid, the overloaded system would routinely blackout unless it was upgraded at the cost of billions. Battery car enthusiast Shai Agassi announced he intends to bring his battery cars to San Francisco and would build 250,000 charging stations around the Bay Area alone - - does that sound like new infrastructure to you?

Third, range matters. Yes the average commuter may only need 30 or 40 miles a day, something they can get from batteries today, but many people live in multi-family apartments and have no access to a charger on a daily basis. Many more can only afford one car and want one that can go longer distances when needed. I recently drove 150 miles to Palm Springs from Los Angeles in my hydrogen powered electric car (the hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell, which powers the same electric motor as a Tesla or any other electric car). I refueled in 7 minutes and was ready to return that afternoon. The Tesla or any other battery car available today would still be at the recharging station 30 miles short of Palm Springs, not to mention the problem of getting back in the same day.

Battery enthusiasts say we will have swapping stations, so in a few minutes you can drop off discharged batteries and pick up full charged ones. Maybe, but then every car will essentially have to have multiple sets of batteries made for it, so there are enough to go around at swapping stations awaiting the need. What does that take in terms of resources and greenhouse gas pollution in the manufacture (and ultimate disposal) of all of those batteries?

Fourth, size matters. There's a reason that battery cars so far are all small. Tesla chose the sports car because it was cool and would brand their company, but also because it is small and light which helps with range (even so, the range is far less than 200 miles). Other car companies toying with battery cars are focused on very small sedans for the same reason. Anyone who needs a larger car or truck will have a very long wait to get one powered by batteries.

Finally, how the electricity is produced will determine how clean battery power is, which is also true of hydrogen production. The need to build all of the new infrastructure, batteries (maybe multiple sets), and charging stations has to be added into that lifecycle analysis, otherwise we're making the same mistakes we made with ethanol - - a mirage of sustainability by looking only at the end use.

The bottom line is that battery cars are no more viable at this time for solving our oil addiction on a large-scale basis than corn-based ethanol. Battery enthusiasts like to bash hydrogen power for vehicles, but are unwilling to address these fundamental problems with their preferred technology any more than Congress people from corn states are willing to be honest about the lifecycle costs of ethanol.

Once we are honest about these challenges, perhaps we can move ahead with real solutions. Otherwise, Copenhagen will be a very cold place this coming December.

Nori’s Eco Salon

Jenna Cittadino — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:47:00 -0400

A few months ago, I was running some errands in my neighborhood and saw a sign for Nori's Eco Salon. I made a note to Google search as soon as I got home.

Much to my surprise and satisfaction, turns out I live five minutes away from "LA's first full service green Hair Salon." What a treat! I poked around the website, and was rather impressed with the story.

The owners, Nori and her two daughters, created a green hair salon in order to promote wellness for their clients and our planet. They do their best to create an environment that is toxic free. They not only evaluate their products, looking for quality products that have the least impact on the planet's resources, but have made sustainable choices for their building materials and office supplies. These choices include:

0 VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) paint on the walls
Floors covered with the natural linoleum made from linseed oil with jute baking
Compact fluorescent light bulbs
Insulation made out of recycled denim
Dry walls are non toxic, sustainable building materials
Brochure and business cards printed with soy ink on 100% post consumer recycled paper
Office supplies are recycled materials

Nori's also offers organic facials, make-up services using mineral, non-toxic products, and organic foot massages. Even the hair coloring products they use were created with "non-toxic in mind," conceived by a hair dresser who became determined to create a safer, less toxic product when she was pregnant with her son and became concerned about her baby's health.

What drew me to Nori's is not only the fact that I am exercising sustainable choices daily, but because every time I leave a salon, I feel light-headed and nauseous from the fumes. Let's face it-woman's beautifying practices are not only time consuming, but hazardous to our health. Many of us put toxic goop on our scalps (next to our brains!) to get a color that makes us feel better about ourselves; that goop gets washed out with even more chemicals from the shampoos and usually an extra heavy-duty conditioner to prevent drying from the dye used on our hair; if we are getting highlights then that entails sitting under an almost unbearably hot dryer to get the color to stick; and in 4 - 6 weeks, repeat. Thinking about this chemically heavy process I have undergone for years motivated me to give Nori's Eco Salon a chance.

After I left the salon, not only was I headache- and nausea-free (although I must admit I did not color my hair, but just had a haircut), but I was inspired by Nori and her two daughters. Nori is about 70, and her two daughters are probably in their 40s. All are immigrants from Iran, and I find it truly admirable that when establishing their American business, they chose to take a few extra steps and give their salon its own green makeover. They are not only conscious of the health of the earth, but the health of their clients and their employees. (Did you know that "hair stylists are four times more at risk for disease?!") .

Nori and her daughters are an inspiration to all and they serve as an example of how any business no matter what kind or size can make a positive impact.

Small Changes/Big Impact

Kristina Haddad — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:04:00 -0400

By Andria Mack, Guest Blogger

Not too long ago, I left my career in hotel management and found myself working for an environmental non-profit organization. I have to admit that the reason I wound up there had less to do with my passion for the environment than my need for a steady gig to support myself. However, when I read the job posting working as the executive assistant to an environmental "power player," I thought that perhaps I might benefit from exposing myself to a little green culture. Boy, did I have a lot to absorb!

I'm an L.A. local who recently moved back after living in San Francisco for about 15 years, so I am at least ahead of some people in the sense that I believe in the reality that is global warming. I believe that we, as humans, have contributed to this predicament. (And the fact that there are some who don't believe that - including one former VP nominee who shall remain nameless - leaves me speechless!) I am proud of the fact that I had previously worked for a hospitality company (JDV Hotels) that practiced green policies and practices designed to "...educate their employees and guests, reduce waste and toxins, conserve natural resources and partner with local and environmentally-friendly businesses," and I manage to always throw my plastic water bottles in the nearest blue recycling bin. Beyond that I am [in my newly formed environmentally conscious opinion] woefully behind in my responsibility to our planet.

So what does a single woman who can't afford a Toyota Prius or Honda Clarity do to help the climate? First, I replaced the bulbs in my home with energy-efficient light bulbs. According to The Nature Conservancy "...they reduce the amount of fossil fuels that utilities burn. You will save 100 pounds of carbon for each incandescent bulb that you replace with a compact fluorescent, over the life of the bulb." I even got a few free ones from my utilities company! Next, I continued a practice that I picked up from living in San Francisco, and I walk to my destinations whenever feasible. I specifically moved into a neighborhood where I have easy access to my local grocery store, museum and other shops. Since I live alone, my grocery runs are never that huge, so I can easily walk to my neighborhood market and carry my groceries home. And speaking of grocery shopping, I absolutely adore the kicky canvas shopping bags that I purchased to replace using plastic or paper. (Not only do plastic bags take hundreds of years to decompose, but plastic bag manufacturing adds to the tons of carbon emissions each year.) I replaced my multiple [plastic] bottled water purchases with a cool reusable zen-patterned aluminum Sigg water bottle. Next on my list is to check my tires on a monthly basis to see that they are fully inflated so I'm burning less gas.

My minor efforts might not seem like much, but it's a start. And, most importantly, it was easy to do. I don't think I'm alone in sometimes feeling like I'm powerless to do anything to help counteract the effects of global warming. So many people just do NOTHING when they feel powerless, but hopefully they too will realize how easy it is to take these first simple steps.

So, after making these minor lifestyle changes, I calculated my carbon footprint and found that my estimated greenhouse gas emissions are 11 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year, which is below the U.S. national average. (Interesting fact: the world average is only 5.5 per person.) Not bad for someone who's still saving her pennies for a hybrid car!

Agree to Disagree:

Kristina Haddad — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:33:00 -0400

By Sasha Abelson, Sustainability and Climate Policy Advisor

Each week I compile a newsletter of carbon and climate related articles. As I sift through articles about cap and trade, energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc., I always find myself drawn to the reader comments that follow the article. Inevitably, there will be a quote from the person who believes the earth is cooling, a rant from the guy who thinks government should not interfere with our emissions and the person who thinks a 2 degree change in global temperatures is not something to stress out about.

My first reaction to these comments is usually outrage. My heart rate speeds up and I want to cite the IPCC's fourth assessment report and attach links to the satellite photos which show the retreat of Wilkin's ice shelf... but then I stop myself and think of a more persuasive approach.

I concede there may be plenty of political and philosophical differences on climate change and the idea of government regulation of emissions. However, I think it is more important to focus on certain issues that we call can agree on.

Saving money through energy saving techniques:

Energy efficiency translates into a language we can all understand - saving money. Companies such as the Gap and Wal-Mart have learned that by measuring and analyzing their carbon footprint they can determine where they can cut back on energy use (and CO2 emissions) thereby positively affecting the bottom line. These types of savings can occur at the individual level as well. Small acts such as switching to LEDs or CFLs and carpooling actually end up as money in your pocket. Who can argue with that?

Worldwide health benefits attributable to cleaner air:

The effects of air pollution on human health are drastic and widespread. Air pollution most commonly affects the body's respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. As a society, we pay for the health effects of air pollution through increased health care costs to treat these conditions as well as a diminished quality of life. I'm sure most people reading this would welcome cleaner air, improved health and lower treatment costs.

So... while there is much we may not agree on I think it is more important to focus on what we do agree on. Because, reducing emissions for any reason - is a good thing.