Climate Action

Everyone hates their taxes being spent on subsidies -- unless it's to subsidize their own industry. It's time for an honest debate about the role of subsidies in a 21^st Century economy and, at least, a restructuring to a more level playing field.

Examples? When I served in California state government, the Schwarzenegger administration tried for three years to push through a solar incentive package. Ultra-conservative State Senator Tom McClintock rose during the debate in red-faced indignation and bitterly opposed any subsidy of an industry that couldn't stand on its own two feet. I've heard that argument repeatedly, often by the same politicians who support massive subsidies to the oil and coal incumbents, despite the fact such "incentives" are hardly needed to get fossil fuels out of the ground.

The latest salvo comes from President Bush, who yesterday said it was time to end subsidies to "multimillionaire farmers." He was addressing a point about sharp increases in food prices, making wealthy agribusinesses even wealthier, partially the result of rising fuel costs and ill-conceived government mandates/incentives to produce ethanol. Ironically, the President told Congress he would veto any bill than shifts even a small portion of the $100 billion/year subsidies given to oil companies towards alternative energy sources.

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?

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. . .)

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.