Confronting Climate Change
Posted on Sep 04, 2012 in News
We’re all busy. If it’s not school, work, or trying to find time for friends, it’s something else. It’s hard to stay engaged with what’s happening in the world. So, you may have missed the scarcely reported recent blockbuster that the Arctic sea ice has hit a record low level. And the melting season’s not even over yet.
You might ask, “So, what?”
Well, it means a great deal for that small group on Earth, affectionately known as all living organisms. With more melting comes a higher coastal water rise, which was previously predicted to reach record levels in the coming decades. The melt has also led to carbon that had previously been held in permafrost, or frozen subsoil, being released in larger-than-expected amounts.
More warming leads to more melting, and the vicious cycle continues unabated for centries - potentially longer.
There also has been new research into the methane found under the Antarctic ice sheet. Similar to carbon dioxide, whose effect is generally known in anthropogenic climate change, methane interacts with molecules in our atmosphere and more efficiently traps solar heat. The real long-term damage of this release of methane might be the positive feedback loop it sets into motion. This loop occurs when there is increased ice melt, exposing once covered methane to the air, and causing the methane to react with the atmosphere and further heat up the planet. More warming leads to more melting, and the vicious cycle continues unabated for centuries – potentially longer.
It’d be slightly heartening if in the face of this fairly sobering news, there not only was adequate attention given to the issue but also was concrete action taken to move towards more renewable sources of energy that don’t exacerbate the problem. But so far, the reaction has been less than stellar.
see Climate change
In The Guardian, which is a UK based publication, one commentator stated that the coverage of new runways at Heathrow Airport received more attention than the record ice melt. And back in the States, the focus was on the campaign and the Republican National Convention, where barely a mention of climate change was given. Maybe the candidates and delegates there were practicing the technique of denying reality as obstinately as possible, in the hope that it would convince others that the issue doesn’t exist. Their farming constituents in the Great Plains and Midwest, whose crops have been decimated by recent drought conditions, might be happy to oblige in jumpstarting their memory, though. Moreover, those in the Gulf region, who sustained record levels of rain when Hurricane Isaac came ashore concurrent to the convention party, might also have a say.
Even President Obama is indecisive on the issue, saying climate change is a reality that must be tackled while allowing Royal Dutch Shell to start exploratory drilling in the Arctic. He has even been pushing for an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, in which he continues to stress the importance of fossil fuels and natural gas, along with renewables, in any future program. Similarly, by giving the go ahead for the construction of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport over one million barrels of dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S. every day, Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to be acting with the sense of urgency that is needed.
So, what can we do? Instead of feeling apathetic and getting understandably overwhelmed with these truly global issues, we need to stay engaged. By keeping up with the latest science and remaining informed, those who may try to diminish or silence proven facts will have a more difficult time of spreading the propaganda.
The problems affecting our planet supersede all other and need to be treated as such.
Eric LaFiore
Staff Writer
beemer26@uab.edu
Agree. Things such as Global Warming and pollution affect the ONLY place we live and are able live until another suitable planet is able to be colonized. So…. WE ALL need to take action to make sure our planet is as healthy as can be.
The fact that there is not a fee on fossil carbon pollution is an example of the government picking winners and losers. Strike that, it’s an example of the government placing bets on doomed losers with our collective tax dollars. How can the market fix this problem if contributing to the problem is free?
We must have a fee on fossil carbon dumping. But, we cannot put a cost on fossil carbon dumping because that would only make consumers pay more and drag on the economy! Besides that money would just go to the central government! Right?
Happily, no! A well known solution to this dilemma is the rising, revenue-neutral fossil carbon fee and dividend.
Rising:
We can’t possibly put a prohibitive cost on fossil carbon instantly, this would shock the economy to death. But there MUST be a good low point at which to start a fossil carbon fee, and then increase it every year.
Revenue-neutral:
This is not a tax. (Taxes have to be on productive things like work and capital because we don’t want the government encouraging bad things in order to make more revenue.) All the collected fees are returned to the economy broadly and equally as possible, e.g., as an equal monthly climate dividend check to all adult citizens, or as payroll tax cuts.
Fee and Dividend:
This is not a money-go-round, either–at least not for the smarter actors (the leaders) in our free market economy. Yes, those who are less intelligent will use all the climate dividend to pay for the increased monthly energy costs. Those who are more clever will divert their energy budgets, one way or another over time, away from fossil energy and toward everything else (low-carbon energy including natural gas, zero-carbon energy including nuclear, and other valuable pursuits besides energy, i.e. efficiency) according to economic merit of each. As time marches forward, those who are astute and diligent will prosper at the expense of the laggards. This is how free market capitalism works.
We would also be protected from unfair trade competition by other countries who let fossil carbon harm be unaccounted for. Tariffs on fossil heavy imports and subsidies on fossil heavy exports would be perfectly legal under this plan. Other nations would have incentive to follow along to avoid those (and to avoid the possibility of our fudging our estimates of the fossil-energy-intensity of their and our goods in our favor by a plausibly small percentage (but cumulatively huge amount)).
A rising, revenue-neutral fossil fee and dividend is an established idea, supported by conservatives, scientists, and green activists alike. As a market-powered keystone of climate policy, it is a favorite of conservatives who acknowledge science and respect human life.
Reagan Sec. of State George P Shultz:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/george-shultz-energy-071212.html Citizens Climate Lobby:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Bob Inglis, R-NC:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2380/text
James Hansen, NASA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/12/james-hansen-carbon-emissions
Art Laffer, father of supply-side economics:
Not sure why my comment was flagged. Does that happen with too many edits? I thought the system would stop me from editing after a certain time period. Otherwise, was my civil, political (if long-winded) speech unacceptable somehow?
The fact that there is not fee on fossil carbon pollution is an example of the government picking winners and losers. Strike that, it’s an example of the government placing bets on losers with our collective tax dollars. How can the market fix this problem if contributing to the problem is free?
But, you’d be wise to say, we cannot put a cost on fossil carbon dumping because that would only make consumers pay more and drag on the economy! Besides that money would just go to the central government! Right?
Happily, no! A well known solution to this dilemma is the rising, revenue-neutral fossil carbon fee and dividend.
Rising:
We can’t possibly put a prohibitive cost on fossil carbon instantly, this would shock the economy to death. But there MUST be a good low point at which to start a fossil carbon fee, and then increase it every year.
Revenue-neutral:
This is not a tax. All the collected fees are returned to the economy broadly and equally as possible, e.g., as an equal monthly climate dividend check to all adult citizens, or as payroll tax cuts.
Fee and Dividend:
This is not a money-go-round, either–at least not for the smarter actors (the leaders) in our free market economy. Yes, those who are less intelligent will use all the climate dividend to pay for the increased monthly energy costs. Those who are more clever will divert their energy budgets, one way or another, away from fossil energy and toward everything else (low-carbon energy, zero-carbon energy, and efficiency) according to economic merit of each. As time marches forward, those who are astute and diligent will prosper at the expense of the laggards. This is how free market capitalism works.
With any fossil fee, we would also be protected from unfair trade competition by other countries who let fossil carbon harm be unaccounted for. Tariffs on fossil-energy-heavy imports from those countries and subsidies on fossil heavy exports to them would be perfectly legal under this plan. Those countries would have incentive to follow along to avoid the tariffs & subsidies, and our (possibly slightly bogus) estimates of the fossil-carbon-intensity of their and our goods.
A rising, revenue-neutral fossil fee and dividend is an established idea, supported by conservatives, scientists, and green activists alike. As a market-powered keystone of climate policy, it is a favorite of conservatives who acknowledge science and value human life.
Reagan Sec. of State George P Shultz:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/george-shultz-energy-071212.html
Citizens Climate Lobby:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Bog Inglis, R-NC:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2380/text
James Hansen, NASA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/12/james-hansen-carbon-emissions
Art Laffer, father of supply-side economics: