Climate Action Blog

Taking the Next Step

Jenna Cittadino — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:57:00 -0400

This last year, I took a large step forward and bought my first house. Very exciting, and I love it! But wow, what a difference a mortgage payment is from rent. One of the crazy things about buying a house is all of the "knocks on your door" that you get -- unfortunately, not from neighbors welcoming me to the neighborhood with freshly baked cherry pies (but that's what happens in the movies!), but people wanting more of my money. For some reason, there is a misconception that after you buy a house, you have lots of extra money to spend. Some of these people who described their products sounded like major scam artists, but there was one product that I found interesting and agreed to let the seller come back and give me a demonstration.

This man told me that he was going to assess the insulation of my house, and let me know what upgrades I qualify for to be paid by The Gas Company. Yes, this sounded great, but too good to be true?

I decided to do some research before I let this optimistic stranger back into my house, and what I found was surprising and promising! My Google search led me to the Flex Your Power website (www.flexyourpower.com), which is California's energy efficiency marketing and outreach campaign, initiated in 2001. Now whether you live in California or not, this site is helpful because it gives you lots of energy saving tips and tools. However, if you do live in California, they provide a "Rebates Incentives and Services Locator," where you type in your ZIP code and they give you a list of all rebates and incentives in your area. This is where I learned that by upgrading my attic and wall insulation, I would get back a certain amount of money per square foot. Now this man who knocked on my door had no association with Flex Your Power except that he was informing people about the program and how they can get some financial help while installing upgrades in their house by using his product and services, which will also save them energy (money) in the future. So he benefits by getting a job, the customer benefits by saving money now and in the future, the earth benefits because it saves energy and reduces global warming, and all inhabitants of the earth benefit because it is helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I was inspired by this smart man's campaign for his small business!

The attic/wall insulation is not the only item for which I qualified. Because I just bought a new energy efficient washer and dryer for my house, I learned that by simply filling out a form and mailing it into the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) I would get cash back; because I recently bought an energy efficient tankless water heater, I would get a tax write off in 2008; and I qualified for free residential shade trees from the LADWP (and all I have to do is take a 20 minute online course then order them)! Of course, there are many other incentives/rebates that I qualify for as I make upgrades to my house, but these were just some of my favorites. And please note that you qualify for free upgrades of various items whether you live in an apartment or a house. Also, please note that they allot a certain amount of funds to each item, so the sooner you act, the better chance you have of qualifying.

So this is nice -- finally, someone out there understands that after buying a house, you don't have more money to spend, but you need some money back! And the best thing about this is that I will continue to be saving money and helping the planet throughout my time in my new home. And you know what? It was pretty easy.

As I continue to learn more and more about climate change and how to reduce my carbon footprint, it is easy to get overwhelmed. Am I doing the right thing? Am I making the right choice? I want to make a difference, but how? There are so many programs and websites like Flex Your Power that are there to help give solutions. One of my favorites is our Climate Policy Program Director, Terry Tamminen's, "20% in 20 Days Challenge" (http://www.terrytamminen.com/assets/pdfdocs/speeches/TopTen.pdf). And although at times we can be afraid of changing our lifestyles, quite often it can be really easy-- and there are people out there willing to educate and help. So I'm trying to improve my lifestyle choices by taking one step at a time.

If I put one step forward, I will be ready to take the next step, and the next step -- leaving a trail of diminishing footprints.

Do Good Lives Have to Cost the Earth?

Kristina Haddad — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:18:00 -0400

The question in the headline was the theme of a conference I attended last month that suggested strongly that no they should not. The conference hosted by the New Economics Foundation, a UK-based "think and do tank" provided statistics, charts and graphs to show us explicitly that indeed happiness is not necessarily linked with material wealth and increased consumption. We all nodded and agreed -- yes we certainly understood that of course a good life does not have to cost the earth. I mean, who wouldn't prefer a meal cooked from a home garden to a meal cooked at a five-star steak house? And then the challenge was put to us -- so how do you convince everyone else of this so as to lower our collective footprint and begin to heal the earth?

Many discussions were had with some of the best thinkers on the topics of economics, sustainability, and climate change among other areas of expertise to contemplate this basic yet in some ways complex question. And all the while I kept struggling with this question. One that I often struggle with: Why should people care? Why should people care about the earth? And more pointedly, because of the work I do, why should people care about climate change? After all, climate change is this somewhat amorphous concept -- I'm not experiencing anything profoundly life-threatening because of climate change. (Or at least that's what it feels like. . .)

It's easy for us to rally around issues that have affected us personally -- an aunt with cancer, a city left in ruins by natural disaster. And then farther away from home there is the image of an impoverished child sleeping on a shred of cloth, jammed up against other impoverished children. Though we don't know the child, we feel a deep sense that we must do something to help. We feel a human connection. One of our own is in dire need and we must help.

But climate change? Why should I care?

What if we realized that that the plight of the impoverished child will be exacerbated many -fold as temperatures rise from climate change. What if we realized that the health of our niece or nephew, our daughter or son could be affected by climate change?

According to a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Currently over 1 billion people -- two thirds of them women -- live in extreme poverty on less than US$1 a day. This figure rises to 2.8 billion if a standard of US$2 a day is used (OECD 2001).Climate change will compound existing poverty. Its adverse impacts will be most striking in the developing nations because of their geographical and climatic conditions, their high dependence on natural resources, and their limited capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Within these countries, the poorest, who have the least resources and the least capacity to adapt, are the most vulnerable (IPCC 2001a). Projected changes in the incidence, frequency, intensity, and duration of climate extremes (for example, heat waves, heavy precipitation, and drought), as well as more gradual changes in the average climate, will notably threaten their livelihoods - further increasing inequities between the developing and developed worlds. Climate change is therefore a serious threat to poverty eradication.

And more close to home according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America climate change is increasingly impacting people who have allergic asthma:

Increasing temperatures (global warming) have stimulated the growth of for mold, pollen, and other allergens
Global warming has extended the growing season for such airborne allergens
Research suggests that these changes might be contributing to an increased incidence and severity of asthma and asthma symptoms.
For the first time, new asthma treatment guidelines released during the summer encourage health professionals to seek out environmental influences on asthma control.

So what if we realized that war, poverty, economic strife and inequity are all linked together by the causes of climate change? Greenhouse gas emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels and the struggle over fossil fuels is a driver for all of these things. And now let us return to the questions of why should we care about the earth, why should we care about climate change and do good lives have to cost the earth?

Perhaps in looking for the answers to these questions we can think of those we love and those we love from afar and we can reconsider our choices. Perhaps we can think of it this way -- more home grown-meals and more switched-out light bulbs might just save someone's life.

Spend Your Money on Something REALLY Stimulating, America!

Sonia Hamel — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:23:00 -0400

April 15, 2008 - US NewsWire Service - A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service today apologized for the inadvertent release of an unauthorized letter* written to accompany the economic stimulus payments to households across America. The IRS spokesman said that taxpayers should ignore the letter, originally written for review and consideration by the White House. Congressional leaders asked for an investigation into how the letter was released. The document is reproduced below:

Dear U.S. Citizen,

Enclosed is your economic stimulus payment for 2008. The check amount is as follows: $600 for a single person, $1,200 for a married couple, and $300 per child, for families making less than $75,000 ($150,000 for a couple).

Speaking of children, if you have any, you should thank them for loaning you this money. After all, they are the ones who will have to pay it back. If you are blessed with grandchildren, don't forget to thank them too. They'll be paying off the interest.

Internally at the IRS, we had suggested that the President and Congress could have saved us a lot of work if they had just sent the money directly to China. After all, they are hoping for a boost in consumer spending, another Christmas in May. But, purchases of Gameboys and Xboxes, iPods and big screen televisions, won't really help the U.S. economy or the global environment. They will send jobs abroad and increase energy use in the US. But since the President wants you to have the money, we here at the IRS are frankly worried that this rebate will make both the economy and global warming worse for our children and grandchildren - a double whammy.

So, if you actually want to help build a better future, then the IRS wants you to consider the following ways to strengthen the economy and rescue the planet:

1) Invest in a "green" mutual fund that invests in environmentally friendly companies, or in those backing alternative energy. Investments in U.S. clean-tech companies will pay you back as they begin the shift to a lower carbon economy for the U.S. (By the way, did you really think a President from Texas was going to invest your tax dollars in alternative energy sources?)

2) Reduce your energy costs by investing your rebate. Replace an energy inefficient refrigerator. Insulate your house. Replace drafty windows. Get your car tuned and replace that tire with the slow leak. Save it up for a hybrid to replace your current car when it fails. These changes will allow you to see an economic return from your rebate and boost American jobs. It will also reduce greenhouse gases and help reduce the price of energy for everyone. Reducing our use of energy is ultimately patriotic and good sense for your family.

3) Buy organic food this year. Although it is more expensive, it will help domestic (mostly small) farmers. And, if you want to be really energy efficient, buy a share in a local farm. Community-supported farmers plant a variety of crops, selling shares (generally costing about $500) in advance. During the growing season, farmers deliver boxes of assorted fresh organic produce; you get fresh healthy food and the farmer gets help in keeping local land in farm use. Can't get more wholesome than that.

4) Repair your house. Using local skilled labor will boost our economy and, after all with the current real estate market, you're going to be living there for a while.

5) Donate the money to a U.S. oriented charity. Any local charity will spend your money, and stimulate the economy almost as quickly as if you had. This will also give you a tax deduction next year and a warm fuzzy feeling this year.

6) Donate the money to a political campaign of a candidate who supports action on the environment and climate change, in particular.

The media is going to be paying a lot of attention to how you spend this money. One of the arguments for tax cuts is always that people can do a better job of deciding how to spend their money than politicians can. This time, America, let's prove them right.

There's no such letter, obviously -- or at least it hasn't surfaced yet! But the point is very much a real one: Short-term thinking is what's gotten us into these messes, both economic and environmentmental. Taking the long view for a change might actually make a difference!

Nuclear Power: The Magic Pill for the Quick-Fix Society

Kristina Haddad — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:36:00 -0400

If you Google "nuclear power + global warming" you will quickly see that nuclear, by some accounts, is the "quick fix" in the fight against global warming. In America, we are always looking for the "quick fix" and in this case many are looking towards nuclear as the miracle drug to our addiction to our overly consumptive lives. When faced with a choice to pop a pill or run the extra mile to lose that extra pound, many of us would choose the pill.

But like any quick fix, this one has side effects. Whether it's the pill that guarantees stronger bones or a mor- active sex life, we are all familiar with the "vomiting, irregular heartbeat and in some cases death may occur" tagline. In the case of nuclear power we have the same scenario. In the same breath that many tout nuclear as the zero-emission answer to our energy troubles, they quickly gloss over or fail to mention the glaring and, yes, potentially deadly side effects.

Side effect #1: Waste. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic meters (25-30 tons) of spent fuel each year, 3% of which is made of fission products. Spent nuclear fuel needs 10,000 years of radioactive decay in order to no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. The U.S. and other countries have yet to implement final disposition of spent fuel or high level radioactive waste streams created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Side effect #2: Safety. Safety failures continue to be discovered at operating nuclear plants. These failures include aging equipment, management that ignores safety concerns raised by workers, poor emergency planning, lack of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight, and weakening of safety standards by the NRC. Dating back to the Clinton Administration, the NRC failed to report approximately a dozen nuclear leaks to local officials and citizens. In the event of a reactor meltdown, both the short and long-term health and environmental effects are catastrophic. Radioactive contamination of groundwater is an ongoing problem. Tritium from nuclear reactors has leaked into groundwater at more than 10 reactor sites. Uranium mining causes dust and radon inhalation for workers resulting in high rates of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. And let's not ever forget Chernobyl.

Side effect #3. Cost/Timeframe. In order to prevent us from reaching the climate change tipping point we must begin to reduce emissions IMMEDIATELY. Major studies[1] agree that about 1,500-2,000 large new atomic reactors would have to be built for nuclear power to make any meaningful dent in GHG emissions. Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor about once every two weeks, beginning today, for the next 60 yrs (historically reactors have taken 6-10 yrs to build). Operation of that many new reactors would cause known uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and force mining of lower-grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher GHG emissions.

In addition, the tax subsidies for the nuclear power industry mimic that of the oil industry. The Bush administration has aggressively promoted the expansion of nuclear energy, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains over $13 billion dollars in new subsidies and tax breaks for the nuclear industry. It has been stated that every dollar spent on energy efficiency is seven times more beneficial than that same dollar would be spent on nuclear power.

We are no doubt facing an unprecedented global challenge -- solving the climate change crisis. And we have a choice -- we can put on our running shoes, leave the car keys at home and walk the extra mile or we can allow ourselves to be seduced by the "magic pill" of nuclear power. It seems to me that the side effects of nuclear power far outweigh the benefits and it's time for this drug to be taken off the market.

[1] From MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, and the International Atomic Energy Agency

The EPA's Dark Denial

Sonia Hamel — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:59:00 -0500

There are two sides to every story, but EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson didn't want to tell his. Johnson refused repeated requests from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to produce documents and talk about why he denied California a waiver to set their own automotive emissions standards.

You'd think he'd have something to say about this unusual action -- it's the first time that the EPA has denied a Clean Air Act waiver since it got the right to grant them in 1967.[1] And Johnson denied the waiver over his staff's recommendations[2] after having had two years to deliberate.[3] Luckily, Committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has just begun to fight. She has introduced legislation to reverse the EPA decision and her bill has the support of 18 other Senators, including Democrats, Republicans, and both of the Senate's Independents.[4]

The Senate is right to investigate US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson's decision to deny California the right to have cleaner cars and to encourage cleaner, lower CO2 technologies for their citizens. They've been joined by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger[5] and an impressive group of state officials from 16 states[6] The emissions program requested would get California's new vehicle fleet up to 36 mpg by 2016. Along with the 18 other states who pledge to adopt the standard, this represents 45 percent of the new car market and would cut vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell points out that his state emits 1 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.[7] A quarter of that comes from vehicles.[8] Rendell notes that the more stringent car standards would not only cut greenhouse gases but would also bring welcome economic relief to a country concerned with recession, since the average gasoline savings should average $6-12 per month at current prices.[9]

If the EPA's decision is, in effect, costing our states' citizens a de facto "gas tax" of $72-$144/year, then reversing it, would mean that Congress would supplement the economic stimulus package, freeing up more funds without depriving federal coffers.

Administrator Johnson's actions, though puzzling, have had a positive and probably unintended consequence. He has brought into sharp focus the degree to which climate change issues aren't a matter of Democrat or Republican or Independent any more. When states representing nearly half the U.S.
population are united in wanting to take bold steps to control greenhouse gases, you can see a common wisdom forming, and not a moment too soon.

[1] http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_8065026

[2] Janet Wilson, "EPA Chief is Said to Have Ignored Staff," L.A. Times, 12/21/07, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa21dec21,1,2746599.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

[3] The waiver request was filed 12/21/2005, but hearings were delayed until the EPA was assured of its regulatory authority over greenhouse gases by the Supreme Court caseMassachusetts v. EPA, decided 5/2/07. Nat'l Council for Science and the Environment, CRS Reports, 10/1/2007. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=1898

[4] According to a January 24 press release from the office of Sen. Barbara Mikulski.http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=291262

[5] http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/6031/

[6] http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_8065026

[7] Press release from Governor Rendell's office, 1/24/08, http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=533438

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

Who Will Tell the Story?

Terry Tamminen — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Welcome to the New America Foundation’s Climate Program Blog. This weekly snapshot will offer insights into the most effective climate solutions around the U.S. and the world. We’ll also ask guest bloggers to give us their analysis and provocative suggestions for getting these solutions into practice -- before it’s too late.

You might be asking yourself why I would mention “U.S.” and “climate solutions” in the same sentence, considering that while we are 5% of the world’s population and generate over 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases, we are the only industrialized nation that has refused to ratify the Kyoto accord. The good news is that the U.S. contribution to battling climate change is taking shape in municipal, state, and regional governments, despite the lack of any contribution by our federal leadership.

I think that telling this story is important to solving the climate crisis worldwide. I think we can agree that solving the climate change challenge depends on getting greenhouse gases slashed in the U.S., but also in China, India, and the other emerging economies. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair told me (in 2006 and again on his last day in office in 2007) that his work with the leaders of those countries has taught him that China and India won’t budge until they see the greenhouse gas leader - - the U.S. -- go first. Therefore, in his view, getting the states to take the action that the feds won’t is the key to making progress in the U.S. and thereby forcing China and India to do likewise. In the end, that’s the exit strategy for this problem.

So if a greenhouse gas disappears from a smokestack and no one is there to witness it, did it really happen? OK, a bad revision of the tree-in-the-forest conundrum, but you get the idea -- we must show the world that the work is going on, no matter where it’s happening, so that others join and we finally avert an even greater crisis.

One blog may not tell all of that story, but each week we’ll bring you a new chapter and new inspiration. Please join us and contribute your thoughts.

Thanks

Terry Tamminen
Cullman Senior Fellow and Director of the Climate Program
New America Foundation

Video of Cap-and-Trade Webinar

Sonia Hamel — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Just wanted to share the video from our Dec. 12, 2007 webinar on the topic of cap-and-trade plans scope of coverage and point of regulation. We're doing a series of these in partnership with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the World Resources Institute -- this is Webinar #2 -- and will post additional in the coming days.