Download Climate change - Citizens` Climate Lobby

 LAWRENCE, KANSAS OPED, MAY 30, 2013 Climate change we can’t ignore By Lynate Pettengill This month we reached a tragic milestone: Carbon dioxide levels hit 400 parts per million (ppm) in our atmosphere (Scientific American, May 9). For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have not risen above 300 ppm. The last time CO2 was at 400 ppm was about 3 million years ago, before humans existed, and sea levels were at least 50 feet higher than they are today. While already dangerously high, we can expect CO2 levels to continue rising 2-­‐3 ppm each year on our current course. The 350 ppm level, which a number of scientists regard as the safe limit, is growing smaller and smaller in our rearview mirror. How high will we allow this number to go before we decide to take significant action to curb greenhouse gases? We know that higher carbon dioxide levels result in higher temperatures, and, not surprisingly, our global average temperature rose by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/649). If we do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, scientists predict that global temperatures will increase by 7 degrees by the end of the century. If many Americans fail to hear alarm bells, it may be due to the fact that a well-­‐
orchestrated campaign has been waged to create the illusion that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about climate change. A recent survey of more than 12,000 peer-­‐reviewed articles on climate change, however, shows such disagreement is virtually nonexistent. Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the survey found this consensus among climate scientists: 97 percent agree that global warming is happening because of human activities. If the science is settled, what does this mean for us here in Kansas? In their 2008 report, “Climate Change Hits Home, The Risks to Kansas,” Drs. Nathaniel Brunsell and Johannes Fedemma, et al, predict that Kansas’ average temperature will increase 2 to 4 degrees by the end of the century, and southwest Kansas will face an average increase of 8 degrees. We will also experience fewer frost days, more heat waves, more intense storm cycles, a higher probability of flooding and decreases in soil moisture. This does not have to be our future. We can take action to preserve a livable world for future generations. One solution, championed by Republican and former Secretary of State George Shultz, is a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. In an op-­‐ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Shultz wrote, “Clearly, a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax would benefit all Americans by eliminating the need for costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field for energy producers.” Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization also working to pass a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, recommends returning the revenue to all households on an equal basis, which would offset increased energy costs arising from the carbon tax. Hopefully, Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts and Rep. Lynn Jenkins will join Shultz and support this innovative solution. In lieu of congressional action, President Obama will turn to Environmental Protection Agency regulation to curb greenhouse gases. Which would our Republican members of Congress prefer: The regulatory approach or the free market approach? Reaching 400 parts per million is our wake-­‐up call on climate change. It’s time to choose the path of heat resistance. Lynate Pettengill is the director of field development for Citizens Climate Lobby. She resides in Lawrence. WEB LINK http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/may/30/opinion-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐we-­‐cant-­‐
ignore/?opinion CCL FILENAME 2013 05 30 LawrenceJournalWorld Pettengill OPED Climate change we cant ignore ASBURY PARK, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 29, 2013
Congress must act swiftly to combat climate change When will Congress acknowledge the reality of climate change and the need to act swiftly and decisively? When the Chesapeake reaches Capitol Hill? Delaying action further will only limit the effectiveness. A recent study found that fully 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is real and is caused by human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. Is Congress’ reluctance to accept the science and acknowledge the facts simply a result of all the lobbying and campaign financing by wealthy corporations that believe climate action isn’t in their own narrow interests? For once, Congress needs to put aside its corporate bias and do what’s best for people and for the planet. What we need is not more toxic oil pipelines or fracking, which put yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but a bold move to clean, alternative energy. To stimulate alternative energy, many of those who have studied this are recommending a carbon fee, which would compensate for the failure of the free market to capture all the costs associated with burning fossil fuels. These costs are borne by society overall, for example, in the form of air and water pollution that produces numerous illnesses along with climate change. Then there’s the outright subsidies supporting fossil fuels, which discourage alternative energy and need to be ended. To compensate consumers for the somewhat higher energy prices, funds from a carbon fee can be returned to taxpayers in the form of dividends. Congress needs to do this — the sooner the better. Tony Giordano Howell WEB LINK http://www.app.com/article/20130529/NJOPINION02/305290016/Congress-­‐must-­‐act-­‐swiftly-­‐
combat-­‐climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 05 29 AsburyParkPress Giordano LTE Congress must act swiftly to combat climate change EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 28, 2013 U.S. holds key to climate treaty U.S. elected officials have performed poorly in addressing the global warming crisis and we can’t wait for the voters to kick them out of office. Only international cooperation can solve the problem. The 2011 Durban conference called on countries to negotiate a new global warming treaty by 2015 and the world will be lucky if that would be in time to prevent the planet from going past the point of no return. Yet December 2015 is less than three years away. The Citizens Climate Lobby has the only viable strategy: We need to convince politicians in Washington, D.C., that they have an obligation to future generations. Eric Pooley’s 2010 book, “The Carbon War,” shows how the 2009 Copenhagen conference failed because the global warming legislation then under consideration in the U.S. Congress was “dead in the water.” A new treaty won’t come into being if the United States fails to make the concessions that would allow the world’s poor countries to view an accord as fair. Action in Congress is essential to break a deadlock in negotiations. Milton Takei Eugene WEB LINK http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29899632-­‐78/eugene-­‐services-­‐women-­‐bags-­‐
hall.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 05 28 RegisterGuard Takei LTE U.S. holds key to climate treaty INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 28, 2013 Nation needs carbon tax to fight climate change In his May 25 column, Eugene Robinson that has been supported by conservative rightly says that President Obama must economists and policy experts: a revenue-­‐
confront climate change now. But I disagree neutral price on carbon, imposed at the fossil that he must “go it alone.” That is only true if fuel point of entry. Revenue neutrality means we let Congress continue its shameful every penny is returned to the public through obstruction. Lawmakers respond to the will a direct payment or reduction in other taxes. of their constituents. So, citizens, it is up to Even President Reagan’s chief economist, Art you! Laffer, the father of supply-­‐side economics, Call, write, email, or visit your members of has come out in favor of this policy, which the House and Senate in person. Tell them forces fossil fuels to account for their present that you will no longer tolerate continued and future harm to our health, wealth and pandering to the climate deniers and wealthy well-­‐being. contributors who have a vested interest in Pricing carbon is not a liberal plot — it is business as usual. common sense. Better yet, tell them that there is actually a Rick Knight market-­‐based solution to the climate crisis Brookfield WEB LINK http://www.indystar.com/article/20130528/OPINION10/305280140/Nation-­‐needs-­‐carbon-­‐
tax-­‐fight-­‐climate-­‐change?nclick_check=1 CCL FILENAME 2013 05 28 IndianapolisStar Knight LTE Nation needs carbon tax to fight climate change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 27, 2013 Climate debate heats up Lamar Smith rightly asserts climate change policy needs thoughtful, objective planning. However, he hasn’t studied climate change enough to recognize objective analysis. He misrepresented IPCC statements on climate change’s connections to severe weather, cited [the State Department’s] Keystone draft omitting its flaws, and claimed warming stopped ignoring that temperatures are within ranges predicted, ocean warming continues, sea level rise and ice melting exceed predictions. Smith’s committee heard Dr. Kerry Emanuel (Republican) testify highlighting a Bush-­‐era Defense Department report calling for American action stabilizing climate change and warning that scientists conservatively, routinely underestimate risk. His committee also needs testimony from top Oil CEOs (ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell) who acknowledge climate change, and prefer a carbon tax solution. These voices ought be heeded if Smith wants objective, thoughtful policy. Judy Weiss Brookline, Massachusetts WEB LINK http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/May/27/lamar-­‐smith-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐global-­‐
warming/3/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 27 UTSanDiego Weiss LTE Climate debate heats up TRENTON, NEW JERSEY FEATURE ARTICLE, MAY 27, 2013
East Windsor environmental activist, 74, continues to fight climate change Ellie Whitney, 74, poses for a portrait in her home in Hightstown on Friday, May 17, 2013. Andrew Miller/For The Times of Trenton By Robert Waldner EAST WINDSOR — If you think you have ever met an environmental enthusiast as determined as Ellie Whitney, you may be wrong. At 74 years of age, the staunch activist is still joining protests, lobbying legislators, writing letters to newspapers, and preaching about the environment. Born at the close of the Dust Bowl, one of the biggest man-­‐made environmental calamities of the last century, Whitney said people now need to turn their attention to another epic-­‐scale disaster in the making: the potential for rapid climate change resulting from over-­‐reliance on fossil fuels. “The solution is at hand: Our Congress must enact a gradually-­‐increasing fee on the carbon that is entering the economy in fuels,” Whitneysaid. “Within a decade we can be well on our way to cleanly producing the energy we need — and can begin to restore the health of natural ecosystems.” The author of books and articles on the environment has lived the values she lectures about. A biologist by training, she lived in Florida for 35 years and taught at Florida State University before leaving to devote herself to writing about nutrition, health and the environment. She has written many textbooks on these subjects, and for six years she wrote an environmental column for the Tallahassee Democrat. She said she saw the light a long time ago, environmentally speaking. “Solar light and heat are my favorite forms of energy,” Whitney said. “During my years in Florida, I built and retrofitted six buildings, including my home and office building, to run mostly on solar energy; and for five years I drove an all-­‐electric car that I recharged from my home carport.” Whitney is a New Jersey native, born in 1938 in Plainfield. She got her bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and her Ph.D. from Washington University. Now back in New Jersey again, and a resident of East Windsor, Whitney continues to share her environmental expertise with anyone who will listen — and with those who would rather not. One of her pet peeves is the Keystone XL Pipeline project, which would transport oil from the Alberta oil sands reservoir in Canada all the way down to refineries in Texas, Illinois, and Oklahoma, and would cost nearly $5.3 billion. “I feel very strongly that the pipeline should not be built; and on Feb. 17, with about 45,000 other people, I marched in Washington with my daughter Lynn and grandson Max to protest against it,” Whitney said. She contends that the pipeline project is only hurting the environment and that resources could be used for something more beneficial. “Its construction would promote the continuation of the tar-­‐sands oil industry, which is hugely environmentally destructive, and would postpone the investment of our resources into efficient and renewable energy,” she said. Proponents of the pipeline have said that Canada is going to mine its oil resources no matter what the United States does, and that sharing in this resource is a way for the U.S. to reduce its energy dependence on other, more volatile oil exporters. Furthermore, they contend the pipeline would be a safe way to transport the oil over the immense distances that need to be covered. Whitney argues that it’s wrong to assume that the oil extraction and consequent environmental disruption would happen regardless of whether the U.S. builds the pipeline. “My experience opposing coal-­‐burning power plants in Florida says that’s not true,” Whitney said. With one fewer oil consumer, Canada may leave that much more of its oil sands resources untouched. In the beginning of 2011, Whitney joined the Citizens Climate Lobby, which aims to persuade Congress to pass legislation that would reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases. She said she spends up to 70 hours a week working on behalf of that group. Through the lobby, Whitney has supported many forms of environmental legislation, including the Climate Protection Act, which calls for a gradually increasing tax on the use of carbon-­‐based fuels to discourage use and help prevent an upward swing in average global temperatures. Last month, Whitney gave a presentation on climate change legislation at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Princeton, where she explained that a price on carbon would be the quickest and most efficient way to reduce the likelihood of severe climate change. Whitney’s environmental activism went into high gear in 1988, when she finally managed to secure enough free time to follow her passion. “I was a full-­‐time associate professor at Florida State University and a single mom, and was writing college textbooks in my ‘spare’ time. I had no chance to go out and enjoy the natural environment until after my children were grown.” She began to roam the natural areas of the outskirts of Tallahassee and became much more concerned about global warming. This led her to join a climate change study group that was founded by the Unitarian Universalist Church. Whitney believes that more schools should install solar panels and students should become experts in solar energy. “Students should learn solar technology and become tomorrow’s energy-­‐industry leaders,” Whitney said. “To make that possible, of course, our governor and Legislature must continue promoting solar installations by way of creative financial incentives such as tax rebates, tax-­‐free loans and net metering.” WEB LINK www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/05/east_windsor_environmental_act.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 27 TrentonTimes Waldner FEATURE East Windsor environmental activist continues to fight climate change FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 27, 2013 Empathy and common sense Thank you for publishing E. J. Dionne's article on the Oklahoma tornado [May 23, A9], President Obama's phone call to Rep. Tom Cole, Cole's vote in favor of disaster relief for NYC after Sandy, and the need for more empathy, honesty and common sense. With our changing climate and CO2 level passing 400 parts per million, we will have more of these severe weather disasters. Congress desperately requires Republican leadership to speak honestly about climate change and the need for common sense federal legislation. I implore Tom Cole to provide a voice of reason in the House, so the federal government can move from ideology to thoughtful governance that can stabilize the climate. Rabbi Judy Weiss Brookline WEB LINK http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x776196121/Weiss-­‐
Empathy-­‐and-­‐common-­‐sense#axzz2UdHYu2i6 CCL FILENAME 2013 05 27 MetroWestDailyNews Weiss LTE Empathy and common sense LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 26, 2013 A child’s explanation I went to my local public library recently to find a book about weather and climate. Specifically, I wanted a simple explanation for why we need trees and how the changing climate is threatening their existence and ours. Many in our country, including some in Congress, deny that climate change is happening, or doubt that it is at all human-­‐
caused. Imagine my surprise when I discovered at least 12 science books for children in my local branch that discussed global climate change, what it is and what is causing it (in part, humans.) So, if anyone out there is having trouble understanding what climate change is and what is causing it, just ask your children to explain it to you. Chrysa Wikstrom Santa Fe WEB LINK http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_7ae4a1c3-­‐f95a-­‐537c-­‐
b132-­‐402112aca595.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 26 SantaFeNewMexican Wikstrom LTE A child’s explanation QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 26, 2013 Support carbon tax I assume neither Ed Markey nor Gabriel Gomez would like to see Duxbury, Marshfield and Scituate under water anytime soon. So shouldn’t both candidates come out in favor of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax that will shift American energy away from carbon-­‐based sources, and keep the tides from rising too high? D.R. TUCKER is with the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x1039448466/D-­‐R-­‐TUCKER-­‐Brockton-­‐Support-­‐carbon-­‐
tax#axzz2URdjdjCn CCL FILENAME 2013 05 26 PatriotLedger Tucker LTE Support carbon tax NORTHWEST ARKANSAS ONLINE OPED, 2013 05 26 Our Planet Passes a Climate Benchmark Observatory Measures High Carbon Dioxide By Art Hobson On May 9, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii measured for the first time a daily average carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration surpassing 400 parts per million. In other words, out of every million air molecules, an average of 400 were CO2. The last time CO2 concentrations were this high was probably during the Pliocene geological epoch, during 5 to 2.5 million years ago. CO2, of course, warms the planet. Before contemplating this, I’d like to make a point about history and science education. Science has discovered the history of humans, animals, the planet, and the universe during an unimaginably longer time than just the past 10,000 years considered in standard history courses. Universityand high school general history courses should spend at least a week on pre-­‐human history (birth of the planet, origin of life, and evolution up to the ape-­‐human separation 6 million years ago), followed by a week on early human history (the 20-­‐plus human species since 6 million years ago, emphasizing forbears such as Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo erectus). Humankind’s geological, biological, anthropological and historical ignorance causes immense grief in this turbulent world, and is an anachronism today. We will not understand who we are until our education is appropriate to the scientific age in which we live. A May 9 National Geographic news article puts the new CO2 benchmark into perspective. CO2 levels, along with changes in Earth’s orbit, are the main drivers of long-­‐
term climate. Throughout the many ice ages that alternated with warm “interglacials” during the past 2.5 million years, and up until the industrial age just 250 years ago, CO2 levels ranged between 180 and 300 ppm. Going back much further, during the Eocene some 50 million years ago there were alligators in northern Greenland living in swampy forests similar to those in our southeastern states today. This warm period, nicknamed “Hothouse Earth,” can only be explained by CO2 that was belched from volcanoes, causing CO2 concentrations two to ten times higher than today. During the next 45 million years, CO2 levels dropped as atmospheric CO2 was deposited in limestone while volcanic activity subsided. By the time of the Pliocene, 5 to 2.5 million years ago, CO2 levels had dropped to under 500 ppm. Some time toward the end of the Pliocene, CO2 levels probably crossed the 400 ppm mark and headed further downward. It was the end of the long hothouse, and the beginning of a slow slide into the Ice Ages. As our ancestors were climbing down from the trees in Africa, the planet was 3 to 7 degrees warmer than it is today and there were camels and little ice in northern Greenland. The 400 ppm CO2 concentration created a climate very dift erent from today’s. Because there was so little ice, sea levels were 30 feet to 130 feet higher than today. Even the lowerestimate would fl ood land inhabited by 75 million Americans. For further perspective, consider the interglacial period a mere 400,000 years ago when CO2 levels are known (via Antarctic ice core measurements) to have peaked at 290 ppm, far below today’s 400 ppm. The evidence is strong that some of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melted, raising sea levels 30 feet above today’s levels. CO2 concentrations are rising every year by more than 2 ppm. Continued high CO2 levels could cause the climate to switch gears into something resembling the Pliocene. The geological record tells us the system is quite sensitive to CO2. Experts believe we’re nearing the threshold for losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. CO2 has increased from 280 to 400 ppm, and temperatures by 1 degree, in the geological instant since1750. Even the strongest efforts to limit emissions cannot prevent an increase to 450 ppm, implying another 1,000 years of high CO2 levels. The only solution is to soon stop emissions, and that will not happen until we put a price on carbon. The fossil fuel industry is spending a fortune on propaganda and politics to convince us they should be allowed to ignore the enormous damage they cause. Putting a price on carbon can be easy and nearly free. Simply enact a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax that is refunded to Americans as an income tax reduction. Industry must begin to incorporate their environmental and social overhead into their own cost of doing business, or the environment, business, and society will collapse. Art Hobson is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Arkansas. WEB LINK http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/may/26/our-­‐planet-­‐passes-­‐climate-­‐benchmark-­‐
20130526/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 26 NWAOnline Hobson OPED Our planet passes a climate benchmark Traverse City Record-­Eagle May 25, 2013 TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2013 Must act together News of carbon dioxide (CO2) reaching Ninglick River has been eroding their village 400 parts per million in our atmosphere as the river rises due to melting sea ice and (New York Times, “Heat-­‐Trapping Gas Passes permafrost. Their village will likely be Milestone, Raising Fears,” May 11) should underwater by 2017. have been on the front page of every The most effective way to put the brakes newspaper. Ths sobering news is a call to on this crisis is a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax action for curbing our carbon fuel use, the on fossil fuel. primary source of CO2 emissions responsible Returning the revenue to households for global warming. Scientists quoted in the protects us from rising energy costs while article used phrases like “it’s scary,” incentivizing us to reduce energy “inevitable march toward disaster” and “the consumption. time to do something was yesterday.” The laws of nature affect us all regardless Don’t believe the 97 percent of climate of our beliefs. We must act together now to scientists who agree global warming is solve this crisis. primarily caused by human activity? Ask Elizabeth Dell people of Newtok, Alaska, America’s first Traverse City climate change refugees. Since the 1990s, the WEB LINK http://record-­‐eagle.com/opinion/x1307049648/Letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐Editor-­‐05-­‐25-­‐2013/print CCL FILENAME 2013 05 25 TraverseCityRecordEagle Dell LTE Must act together LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2013 Devising a Strategy for Climate Change
Re “Climate Warnings, Growing Louder” (editorial, May 19): It was heartening to see The Times call upon the Obama administration to get on with steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially since we are at the 400 parts per million milestone of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a level not reached since long before humans arrived on the scene. It was less heartening, however, to see you dismiss the possibility of Congress’s ever enacting a tax on carbon. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency could come out with strong restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but such regulations will surely increase electric bills, with the poor and middle class shouldering the burden. A revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, with money rebated to all households equally, would bring down emissions and at the same time shield households from the economic impact of rising energy costs. President Obama cannot impose a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. Only Congress can do that. The Times and other media outlets must not relieve our legislators of their responsibility to act on climate change. MARK REYNOLDS Executive Director Citizens Climate Lobby Coronado, Calif., May 19, 2013
WEB LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/opinion/devising-­‐a-­‐strategy-­‐for-­‐climate-­‐
change.html?_r=1& CCL FILE NAME: 2013 05 25 NYTimes Reynolds LTE Devising A Strategy For Climate Change MEDFORD, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2013 Salmon showed up in Salem Concerned about climate change, the 100-­foot Rogue salmon swam to Salem on Wednesday, May 22. Sponsored by the Southern Oregon Climate Action Network, February's "Rogue Thing" was driven by an energetic group of Rogue Valley climate activists who attracted a record number of residents to Medford to support the national day of climate action. A mosaic of more than 1,300 contributed artistic tiles, the salmon was ready for the Capitol lawn. During the statewide follow-­‐up, Oregon Climate Action Day, Oregonians joined the salmon at the Capitol to discuss climate change with representatives. We must reduce carbon emissions. The carbon fee and dividend plan we took to Salem proposes fossil fuels be subjected to a fee as they enter our economy based on carbon content. This fee is returned to taxpayers as a dividend, encouraging fossil-­‐
fuel users to seek less polluting energy sources and making clean renewable fuels more competitive. The dividend offsets elevated prices as the carbon fee is passed on to consumers, and encourages us to buy products made with less fossil fuel. With a low-­‐carbon lifestyle, we gain further by avoiding the carbon fee while still receiving the dividend. Alan Journet, Jacksonville, co-­
facilitator, Southern Oregon Climate Action Network Visit www.oregoncan.info WEB LINK http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130525/OPINION/305250302/-­‐
1/OPINION03 CCL FILENAME 2013 05 25 MedfordMailTribune Journet LTE Salmon showed up in Salem DES MOINES, IOWA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2013 Register's climate change leadership is needed I grew up in a family in which the Register and have a climate desk. Every paper should was held in high regard, so I appreciated Kyle help us both understand what we face and Munson’s column on the historical evaluate solutions, such as the carbon fee and contributions of the newspaper [“How The dividend proposal. There are facts about Register Has Shaped Iowa,” May 19]. Such climate change that should scare us as well as leadership is now more important than ever stories of creative ways those facts are being in the face of the climate crisis. Unless we faced that could give us hope. take swift and decisive action, children alive The consensus among scientists doing today will inherit a planet hostile to human peer-­‐reviewed research is that climate habitation and civilization. change is a human-­‐caused reality. It is time The media has failed to educate us about for the Register to live up to its legacy and this most important of issues. It is time for the become the center of a conversation long Register to show the courage and overdue. perseverance that Munson documented. We Rev. Joan Wooters Fumetti need to see climate news on the front page Windsor Heights WEB LINK http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201305260405/OPINION04/305260026
&nclick_check=1 CCL FILENAME 2013 05 25 DesMoinesRegister Fumetti LTE Register’s climate change leadership is needed CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2013 Kraft and Johnson team up against Cape Wind Pair failed to factor in fossil fuel damage It is sad to see Robert Kraft and Fidelity To argue against Cape Wind electricity's Investment's Abigail Johnson team up against high price without factoring in the costs of Cape Wind without having given the subject fossil fuel damage to our health and our sufficient thought and research. The most environment suggests they have teamed up reasonable, anti-­‐Cape Wind ad campaign for their own selfish reasons rather than for these two renowned business leaders could the greater good. have structured for Massachusetts (and the We expect better from Kraft and Fidelity. country) is to proclaim the need for a federal Rabbi Judy Weiss carbon pollution tax. Brookline, MA If Cape Wind's electricity would still be Rabbi Weiss is a member of Citizens more expensive than fossil fuel electricity Climate Lobby, a national organization after a carbon tax compels fossil fuel of volunteers lobbying for legislation producers to pay for their pollution, then to stabilize the climate. Cape Wind is not worth pursuing. WEB LINK http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/05/25/19509-­‐kraft-­‐and-­‐johnson-­‐team-­‐against-­‐
cape-­‐wind CCL FILENAME 2013 05 25 CapeCodToday Weiss LTE Kraft and Johnson team up against Cape Wind LINCOLN, NEBRASKA EDITORIAL, MAY 24, 2013 Editorial: The meaning of 400 ppm By the Journal Star Editorial Board When scientific instruments manufactured highest reading in the unbroken record of CO2 in Lincoln recorded the highest concentration of measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory carbon dioxide in human history at the Mauna on the Big Island of Hawaii dating to 1958. Loa Observatory, the benchmarks cited by When Charles Keeling established the scientists were more than a bit unsettling. monitoring station, readings were 315 parts per Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and million. They have risen steadily since. Atmospheric Administration went back to the The historic and natural variability of Pleistocene Era about 2 million years ago. weather tend to mute public support for action “It was much warmer than it is today,” Tans to combat climate change. said. “There were forests in Greenland. Sea level During a chilly spring with adequate rainfall was much higher, between 10 and 20 meters in Nebraska, alarm about CO2 concentrations (33 to 66 feet).” stays in the background with all the other Other scientists went back to the middle of potential causes of global disaster. the Pliocene Epoch, 3.6 million to 2.2 million Other Americans cannot afford complacency. years ago. In the journal Science this month, In Newtok, Alaska, for example, residents are scientists reported that CO2 levels during the worried that their village on the coast of the middle Pliocene Epoch ranged between 380 to Bering Sea soon will be underwater because of 450 parts per million. climate change. Melting permafrost and less A sediment core from a lake in Russia seasonal ice mean land around the village is provided evidence that the Arctic region eroding rapidly, The Guardian, a British probably had forests during this period. newspaper, reported this month. Scientists have direct evidence of the In a story titled “America's first climate amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for refugees,” the newspaper reported that a U.S. the past 800,000 years by analyzing bubbles in Army Corps of Engineer report said the highest ice cores drilled miles down into the Antarctic point in the village could be underwater by ice sheet. 2017. Carbon dioxide is the main heat-­‐trapping When the Ninglick River that surrounds the greenhouse gas. CO2 absorbs heat from the sun village rips into its banks, it sometimes and prevents it from escaping back into space. dislodges mammoth tusks and other fossil The reading of 400.17 parts per million reminders that the region once was a warmer reported by instruments made by LI-­‐COR place. In Newtok, people have no difficulty Biosciences of Lincoln on May 13 was the believing that climate change is real. WEB LINK http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-­‐the-­‐meaning-­‐of-­‐
ppm/article_f67ee301-­‐499e-­‐5051-­‐8b3b-­‐e71fe945e419.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 24 JournalStar Ed Board EDITORIAL The meaning of 400 ppm CONNECTICUT ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 23, 2013 Let's Rethink Earth Day for the Future I sympathize with the feeble Earth Day cleanup that occurred this year in Jamestown. But perhaps we need to rethink the meaning of Earth Day. The first Earth Day in 1970 consisted of 20 million Americans, poised for political action. Because the Earth Day organizers were tied in to offices of our Members of the U.S. Congress, Earth Day began focused public and political campaigns that resulted in a decade of unprecedented environmental legislation, which included the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and more. Now what do we do on Earth Day? One of the greatest platforms for delivering meaningful legislative action has de-­‐evolved into collecting other people’s garbage. We are facing one of our greatest comprehensive challenges: climate change, which is locally resulting in ocean acidification, sea-­‐level rise, stronger storms, the migration of species and more. What if we looked at our future Earth Day in a different light? What if Earth Day 2014 was reaffirmed as a day of national political action to educate the public on solutions to climate change such as a carbon fee and dividend? What if Earth Day 2014 were tied in to the offices of our Members of Congress who are climate champions, such as Senator Whitehouse, Rep. Waxman and others? What if we could have teach-­‐ins and rallies across the country and have safe climate legislation in hand? Do you envision a different kind of Earth Day on the local and national levels? Mary Jane Sorrentino Jamestown, RI WEB LINK http://www.jamestownpress.com/news/2013-­‐05-­‐
23/Letters_to_the_Editor/Lets_rethink_Earth_Day_for_the_future.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 23 JamestownPress Sorrentino LTE Lets rethink Earth Day for the future 8 Steps to Fuel
Free Sustainable
Democracy
May 16, 2013
We can build a 100% fuel free fullspectrum sustainable democracy.
With 8 conceptually simple, and
practically far-reaching framework
upgrades, we can accelerate the pace of
change and motivate a paradigm shift in
the way we address climate
destabilization, without any commandand-control or dubious financial wizardry:
1.
Full-spectrum sustainable
communities (FSSC)
2.
Calculation of climate debt
amassed to date
3.
Focus on speeding over the horizon
tech to market
4.
Smart grid
5.
Solar highway infrastructure
6.
Maximum flexibility in clean fuel
choice
7.
Grassroots-capacitative Fuel Free
Media Network
8.
Citizen leadership on federal
policy-making
1. FSSC: Paradigm Leaders, Organizing the New American Dream
The biggest obstacle to going 100% fuel
free is our sense of cultural, practical and
political inertia… It isn’t happening, so it
won’t happen. We can motivate major
change, both requiring and conducive of
paradigm shifts in our social and
technological infrastructure, if we build
from the spaces we inhabit, while ensuring
policy frameworks keep pace.
Full-spectrum sustainable communities
(FSSC) aim to achieve low to zero
environmental impact (regenerative
sustainability) in all segments of our
interaction with resources and natural life
support systems. Full-spectrum
sustainability means our transportation is
sustainable, our energy production is
sustainable, our political organizational
infrastructure is sustainable, our education,
our engineering, our commerce, our
national security strategy, and so on.
Important as this is, we cannot simply
overhaul every area of human existence,
from the top down, and still enjoy real
democracy. We need to build fullspectrum sustainable communities from
the ground up: focusing on local needs
and embedded human potential from the
perspective of the local, imagining bold
visions for application of new technologies
and major policy revisions.
We can facilitate paradigm-shift thinking,
by providing information about cuttingedge technologies, by making them more
accessible, providing reports on successful
implementations in communities large and
small. We can build an always-on
repository of visionary reporting on the
active transition, with notes in how to most
affordably accelerate and expand the
virtues of the transition: a network of
communities studying and effecting their
own full-spectrum sustainable revolution.
The network would include:
•
Media platforms to report, network
and facilitate planning;
•
Practical access points for
implementation of hybrid policy
frameworks (public/private, state/
federal) to achieve full-spectrum
sustainable standards more rapidly
and affordably;
•
Events and gatherings: conferences,
festivals, grassroots democratic
infrastructure to allow citizens and
stakeholders to have a more direct
say in policy-making.
If we start from the community level, but
build a shared facilitating network that is
national, we can harness the human
power of the NIMBY (“not in my back
yard”) urge, by transforming it into
constructive action that renders the
unacceptable intrusion in question
obsolete.
2. Track the Mounting Climate Debt Calculus
Stakeholders from every level of human
society pitch in their two cents: major
reinsurers, small municipalities, families,
FEMA, Defense, reports (both from
government and from the people) that help
to build a National Strategic Narrative,
comments on and innovations for
agriculture, tourism, infrastructure,
education, etc. We can focus our attention
on what the destabilization of our climate
is costing, in all these areas, in terms of
dollars spent, opportunities lost and future
dollars already forcibly dedicated to
coping and remediation.
We add up all of the systemic corruption
witnessed so far, along with what models
tell us is built in. We offer hard numbers to
policy makers. We make these reports
standard, commonplace and public. We
build awareness of the facts of our
collective climate debt.
This will allow us to better “see” the real
value of our economic activities. To break
the cycle of corrosive behavior and
unfunded climate destabilizing vice, we
need to replace ignorance with awareness.
We need to correct actual prices in
consumer markets, and do so while
making real alternatives available. The
chicken-and-egg problem of which should
happen first must be resolved by doing
both simultaneously.
As we build real, fact-based awareness of
the mounting cost of our mounting
destabilization of major climate patterns
into our thinking about policy,
consumption, personal choice and
business planning, we also build a genuine
socio-political framework in which we can
do more, more quickly, to effect the
needed transformational change.
3. Learn to See Over the Horizon
Unlike fiscal debt, the carbon-driven
climate debt is a cycle we can break,
because we can harvest enough energy
from other sources to allow ourselves to
cease all burning of greenhouse gases
(GHG). The technologies we require to
carry out a transition to a 100% fuel free
economy are already available to us. They
are scalable and on the market.
All we need to do is shift our industrial,
financial and political infrastructure to line
up with the process of building the
physical infrastructure required for
deploying these technologies on a massive
scale.
We have thousands of times the accessible
solar radiation required to power all
human energy needs, at any given time.
We just need to put the technologies in
place to harness it, convert it to electricity
and move it around.
We can use traditional solar panels, solar
arrays and solar-thermal concentration
systems, for large-scale production, and
we can use nano-scale and glitter-sized
solar applications like photo-voltaic (PV)
inks, paints, fabrics, bricks, glass, etc., to
augment solar energy production at the
hyper-local. We can retrofit old buildings
with organic solar concentrating windows
and even expect smart phones and “smart
paper” to become more efficient, and to
generate their own energy, significantly
reducing the strain on major power grids.
We can build vehicles that harvest energy
as they move through the environment.
We can build roads that produce energy
(see below) and zero-GHG-emissions jet
fuel.
4. Smart Grid
In order to achieve anything like a
ubiquitous, cutting-edge renewable clean
energy economy, we need a smart grid: an
electricity distribution system that “knows”
how to move electricity from where it is to
where it needs to be.
With a vibrant, scalable, state-of-the-art
smart grid, we transcend the paradigm that
ties us to the notion of “baseload” power,
the finite, concrete, store of energy (in a
volume of coal or petroleum or natural
gas) that will be released by combustion
when we need or ask for it.
The true smart grid will make the vast
abundance of clean renewables like wind
and solar power available to us wherever
we need them across that grid. We will be
able to generate power as locally as we
need or desire, and to move energy, as
electricity, wherever there might be a
shortage of generation for any reason.
Because generation will be increasingly
decentralized, we can build a usergenerated repository of information about
grid status, upgrades, demand for smart
metering, etc. We can include information
about local, state and federal credits,
grants and loans, along with links to
foundations facilitating smart grid
upgrades and affordable scalable clean
energy installations.
A true smart grid will also be flexible
enough to work around and allow for gridfree energy technologies and empower
both industry and end-users to find,
produce and/or store energy, without
requiring the grid. This can allow for new
ways of adding power to the grid, new
competitive advantage for consumers, and
a wide array of new production methods,
conducive of innovation on a scale and at
a speed not previously seen.
5. Solar Highway Infrastructure
Because we receive so many thousands of
times the energy we need, in the form of
solar radiation, at any given time, we need
less than one-tenth of one percent of the
land area of the United States to generate
all of the solar energy we need to power
our entire economy. The simplest way to
occupy a large amount of land area
without taking over still more open space,
habitable acreage or arable land, and to
do so affordably, is to build roads and
highways that harvest solar radiation to
make electricity.
One example is the innovative company
Solar Roadways, of Montana, which has
created a modular system that turns
roadways into massive solar photo-voltaic
farms. This kind of infrastructure should
accompany the decentralized
informational and planning resources, and
the deployment of a locally controlled,
locally fed, distributed, network-operated
smart grid.
When we have build the smart grid, the
distributed user-empowered informational,
planning and management network, along
with solar highways, electrified transit, and
a robust backstop of wind farms and
localized wind-energy production, we will
not only free ourselves from the corrosive
impacts of climate destabilizing
combustible fuels, but also expand the
spaces for human liberation itself, both by
building a more democratic socio-political
and commercial infrastructure, and by
allowing people to mor affordably and
more reliably access the energy and means
of transport, movement and sustainable
opportunity.
6. Maximum flexibility in clean fuel choice
Building new infrastructure in such a way
as to allow for near seamless integration of
new innovations in fuel and energy
production is vital for more reliably
accessing sooner rather than later the
massive potential cost-savings and
economic vibrancy associated with a true
fuel free renewable energy economy.
If we build more carbon fuel infrastructure
now, we will have to replace or upgrade it
win a few decades. And, we will have to
pay again to build from scratch the
optimized generative energy infrastructure
of the clean energy economy. If we build
infrastructure that can seamlessly integrate
any new modular clean electricity
producing technology, we can more
rapidly and more affordably build
increased capacity and efficiency to the
grid at any time.
Doing that allows us to operate in an
entirely distinct paradigm, in which there
will no longer be any genuine economic
justification for continuing the use of
climate destabilizing combustionpurposed carbon-based fuels.
7. Grassroots-Capacitative Fuel Free Media Network
It is not possible to truly empower endusers and decentralize control of our
energy future, unless we also decentralize
the flow of best-quality eminently relevant
capacity expanding information regarding
the best ways to generate energy
affordably and sustainably. We can and
must build a grassroots-capacitative media
network oriented toward achieving a
100% fuel free socio-political
infrastructure in which all commerce (the
full spectrum) is conducive to both
enhanced democratic involvement in
human outcomes and also to enhanced
sustainability.
To build this network, we begin with a
simple social networking project. We
integrate dominant social networking tools
into the design of a dedicated site. We
publish reports, data, government and
private-sector projects, activist news,
organizational and decision-making news,
educational services and production, and
event announcements.
From there, we begin to add more
technological capability and a wider and
more diverse membership. We add video,
apps, podcasting and other media, aiming
always to manifest both the actual shape of
the cutting edge, and also the landscape as
yet “over the horizon”.
We keep in mind as a guiding editorial
and structural principle that those
solutions which will one day become
available are already possible; if they do
not yet exist in concrete form, we need
only to envision them to begin to bring
them into being. As Bill Becker, of the
New America Foundation, argued in the
inaugural edition of the HotSpring
Quarterly, last fall, we need to produce
more widely available high-quality media
illustrating the most ambitious and
encouraging visions of what we can
actually achieve, combining what we
know how to do with what we aspire to
do, in order to bring the idea of credible,
transformative future-making into the
popular mind.
This proposal calls for allowing the public
—citizens, families, communities, business
and institutions—to contribute, regularly,
ambitiously and forthrightly to imagining
and enacting that credble, viable,
eminently possible, 100% fuel free fullspectrum sustainable future.
8. Citizen Leadership on Federal Policy-making
Because the transition to a distributedgeneration smart-grid-based fuel free
energy economy requires democratization,
and this plan benefits from the
decentralization of decision-making and
information distribution, as well as
management and economic incentive for
clean energy development and investment,
direct citizen participation in federal
policy-making is vital.
Currently, the non-partisan, non-profit
Citizens Climate Lobby is working to build
political will for a price-correcting,
human-scale-relevant markettransformative carbon-pricing plan that
would return 100% of its funds to
households to reinvest in the future of
energy. The Fee and Dividend plan would
impose a steadily increasing fee on
carbon-based fuels, at the source (mine,
well, port of entry), to correct the radically
distorted price of refined carbon-based
combustible fuels.
100% of the revenues would be returned
to households, to make sure industry does
not punish consumers for its corrosive
activities. In the early years, this would
cushion the economy against a sudden
shock, while allowing investors and major
energy providers to see a clear and
corrective price signal, and to better plan
for the future. As money pours into clean
alternatives, and the cost of carbon-based
fuels escalates, consumers will spend on
cheaper clean fuels, save some of the
dividend, and accelerate the transition.
A border adjustment would be applied, to
ensure foreign trading partners don’t give
their commercial interests an unfair
advantage by not imposing a comparable
carbon-pricing plan.
The plan requires no new bureaucracy, is
revenue neutral, can be designed to be
bipartisan, will create new jobs, and
allows for the democratization of the
energy marketplace, even as it corrects the
most costly market failure in the history of
modern economics.
As citizens take a more active role in
solving major crisis-level system-wide
problems, they also build their own access
to real democracy. The solution comes into
being as the possible first shows itself, then
replaces the flawed dynamics of the model
in which crisis-level system-wide problems
are the direct result of everyday activities.
Concluding Summary
This 8-point framework-upgrade plan
would do what R. Buckminster Fuller
consistently set out to do, in his work:
replace a flawed system that generates
unnecessary corrosive impacts with a
more vibrant, organic intelligent order,
aimed at reducing entropy and expanding
fairness, continuity and sustainable human
thriving, thus eliminating the crisis-level
system-wide problem of mounting and
accelerating global climate destabilization.
Published May 16, 2013 by Joseph
Robertson, on Geoversiv.com
Web link: http://www.casavaria.com/
geoversiv/8-point-fuel-free-plan/
EDITORIAL, MAY 13, 2013 WISC Editorial Agenda 2013 -­ Our Climate -­ Another Line Crossed CO2 at historic levels. Late last week our world experienced a understanding of all this with the statement dubious milestone with very troubling that climate change is a scientific fact. Too ramifications. Scientists say that a many people, including way too may measurement of the amount of carbon politicians, continue to deny this for political dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts reasons. As they sit on their hands our per million. There are a lot of ways of looking environment degrades and continues to at this, but the most dramatic may be that the warm. If nothing is done we will reach earth reached 300 parts per million in 1915 disastrous levels of CO2 and warmth this for the first time in at least three million century. years. It took less than 100 years to reach This all requires a global response, 400. unprecedented citizen action and political Unfortunately we still have to begin our will. The numbers are staring us in the face. This editorial was published after broadcast at the following link: WEB LINK http://www.channel3000.com/news/opinion/wisc-­‐editorial-­‐agenda-­‐2013-­‐our-­‐climate-­‐
another-­‐line-­‐crossed/-­‐/4028/20132602/-­‐/vdqtetz/-­‐/index.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 13 WisconsinWCBS-­‐TV Ed Board EDITORIAL Another line crossed SUDBURY, ONTARIO GUEST COLUMN, MAY 13, 2013 Arctic melt affecting jet stream A conversation on climate change between Cathy Orlando and Gerry Labelle Cathy: Gerry what's the most annoying question or comment you get pertaining to your involvement with the Citizens Climate Lobby, also known as CCL? Gerry: I always get, why are you involved with CCL? Cathy: And what do you say? Gerry: I say, "I'm doing it because you won't!" I think that's the same answer every volunteer should give whenever they are asked why they volunteer. Cathy: Do you find it annoying? Gerry: No I find it sad or maybe more unfortunate. What about you Cathy? What do people say to you that drives you crazy? Cathy: They say, "you are so lucky you are able to do this work!" Gerry: Wow, and what do you reply? Cathy: Truth be told climate change is not my passion, biology and astronomy are. I'm doing this for my kids as well as for all other children. And this is part of my pension plan strategy. I want there to be a world to live in when I am a little old lady. Gerry: Anything else? Cathy: People think I receive funds to do this work. I don't, I AM A VOLUNTEER. There, have I said it loud enough. I volunteer to coordinate and manage volunteers across Canada who volunteer to lobby their MP and MPPs and the media to get a fair, transparent and effective price on disruptive carbon pollution. And until we find funding this will remain a volunteer organization. Gerry: How do you mean disruptive? Cathy: Have you checked what's happening in the Arctic in March? Here we are, it's barely spring and the ice has already started to break up in the Beaufort Sea. The rapidly warming Arctic in turn is impacting the jet stream making it meander and move more slowly, thus making weather more extreme and more difficult to predict. Humans have benefited greatly from a stable climate for the last 11,000 years or roughly 400 generations. Not anymore. We've disrupted an 11,000 year old stable climate cycle with our misuse of fossil fuels. Gerry: You know Cathy, that's why this work we do as volunteers is important. Our agenda is to help everyone reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. Cathy: Yes we exist to lobby everyone in order to pressure policy makers, decisions makers and government to put a fee on carbon pollution. Gerry: And what do you want our government to do with the money? Cathy: I think 100% of the dividends should be given back to the people. Gerry: I agree. What keeps me hopeful is probably what keeps you hopeful. It is the fact that we have the technological and economic solutions for the climate crisis. All that is standing in the way are social and political barriers. Cathy: That is so, so true. Gerry: Which is why Citizens Climate Lobby exists: to create the political will for livable world. How many chapters are there now? Cathy: Currently, there are now 92 chapters in North America. Canada has 22 group leaders and approximately 100 volunteers in 11 areas of Canada, covering just over 30 ridings. It is the CCL group leaders and volunteers that give me the greatest hope of all. They are awe-­‐inspiring, unconditionally-­‐giving and empowered people. Gerry Labelle is a former Progressive Conservative candidate in Sudbury. Cathy Orlando works as the national manager for Canada's Citizens Climate Lobby, an international, not-­for-­profit, non-­partisan and volunteer climate education and lobbying organization. The Canadian headquarters are in Sudbury. WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 05 13 SudburyStar Orlando & Labelle GUEST COLUMN Arctic melt affecting jet stream MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 13, 2013 Start saving planet On May 9, the carbon output of our planet reached a deadly 400 parts per million (ppm) ("It's a record week for carbon dioxide," May 12). This spells imminent disaster for a world that desperately needs to be at or under 350 ppm in order to maintain a healthy, stable environment as projected by former NASA scientist James Hanson, who first diagnosed and analyzed global warming in the 1990s. So what does one do about this situation? Shrug it off and give halfhearted sighs before hopping in one's SUV to go eat at a fast-­‐food chain to forget about Earth until Earth Day comes again next year? No. People can make a difference on the impact of their footprint on this world by cutting back. Unplug electronics when not in use. Instead of turning on the heater in the winter, grab a sweater. Bike to work or take transit instead of a car. Every little bit adds up to diminish the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. And if one would like to take a bigger role, there are many organizations one can join to personally battle climate change. These include The Citizen's Climate Lobby, the 350 Movement and The Sierra Club. Get out there, people. Start saving the planet for the future. Zach Tracy Mount Pleasant WEB LINK http://m.jsonline.com/more/editorials/letters/207298911.htm CCL FILENAME 2013 05 13 MilwJS Tracy LTE Start saving planet HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 13, 2013 Line 9: all risk and no reward Protesting oil pipeline foes close Hwy. 6; Stage mock oil spill, hand out flyers and muffins to inconvenienced drivers (May 7) Regarding their blockade of Highway 6 Furthermore, while there are some activists say " … this disruption is appropriate economic advantages to Alberta as a result of … [because] an actual spill would be far more tarsands development, there are serious risks disruptive." True, the probability of a spill is involved for Ontario. Damage to Ontario's fairly high in this 38-­‐year-­‐old pipeline. fruit tree crops alone because of last year's Enbridge is still unable to restore the wacky weather resulted in around $76 Kalamazoo River in Michigan more than two million in recovery costs. Also, factor in the years after a disastrous spill. risk that an exponential growth of tarsands However, even more probable and sales might have on the Canadian currency disastrous is the threat of climate change. and Ontario's struggling manufacturing Tarsands oil is one of the most carbon sector. The inverse correlation between oil intensive transportation fuels on the planet. If extraction and welfare of a nation's Canadians allow exponential growth of manufacturing sector are well documented in Alberta's tarsands via Line 9, it sets a an economic theory called Dutch disease. precedent around the world that corporate Line 9 is simply all risk and no reward for profits trump climate change mitigation. And Ontario. This was a worthwhile blockade if we, as a species, follow this precedent, there Dante Ryel is little hope of our survival. Hamilton WEB LINK http://www.thespec.com/opinion-­‐story/2873942-­‐line-­‐9-­‐all-­‐risk-­‐and-­‐no-­‐reward/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 13 HamiltonSpectator Ryel LTE All risk and no reward CINCINNATI, OHIO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 13, 2013 We have stolen from children, grandchildren by ignoring science I was happy to see The Enquirer’s story “Carbon dioxide levels soar to milestone levels” (May 11). It was front-­‐page news on The New York Times for a good reason. Due to the slow inertia of the climate system, the greenhouse gas emissions that made 2012 the hottest year in US history, and the ninth-­‐
hottest year for the planet, were emitted in the 1960s. The slow inertia of the climate system is due to ocean thermal inertia. The trapped heat from greenhouse gases heats the ocean over 30-­‐100 years (best evidence thus far shows 40 years average), before being re-­‐emitted to the air and staying there. This is similar to putting a pot of water on a stove to boil. The flames are hot immediately, but the water takes time to heat and boil and then heat the air above the water. Same principle for the transference of heat trapped by greenhouse gases from the oceans to the air. The 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide mentioned in the above articles won’t raise the temperatures for about 40 years. We have stolen our world from our children and grandchildren by ignoring the chemistry and physics that creates our weather every day of our lives. Their lives, such as they are, will be vastly different from what we experience. All 88 counties in Ohio qualified for drought assistance from the USDA last year due to the drought. The $5 trillion Great Lakes economy has been slowed due to near-­‐
record lower water levels caused by the drought. This causes ships to carry less to prevent them from running aground. What the article failed to mention is that the safe limit for CO2 levels is 350 ppm. This will limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the temperature that will not lead to catastrophic climate change, it is hoped. But 400ppm is far beyond that, as will be the temperature when it peaks, and it will stay there for 1000 years. Jeff Cobb Norwood WEB LINK http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2013/05/13/we-­‐have-­‐stolen-­‐from-­‐children-­‐grandchildren-­‐
by-­‐ignoring-­‐science/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 13 CincinnatiEnquiirer Cobb LTE We have stolen from children & grandchildren by ignoring science MADISON, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 12, 2013 Still column correct on need for energy diversity Tom Still’s Inside Wisconsin column last includes happiness and health. Investing in Sunday, "Oil boom doesn't end need to the clean energy future makes necessary diversify," hits home, especially his last line: sense to truly prosper in all ways. “Today’s oil and gas boom is buying valuable A carbon tax returned to taxpayers would time, but investing in the energy future still level the field with fossil fuels and create makes sense.” more jobs, as it has in other countries. The Nothing is truer when we look at what cost of energy will increase slightly overall, most scientists see as unprecedented carbon-­‐
which it will anyway, but the cost of the based greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. damage to our health and our planet's health Few now doubt this is man-­‐made, or that it’s will decrease. causing the greenhouse effect. Yet we Support health and real prosperity for us continue to dump this in our atmosphere, a and our Earth by supporting a carbon tax. byproduct of "prosperity." Dan Fay, engineer Prosperity refers to wealth, but it also McFarland WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/dan-­‐fay-­‐still-­‐column-­‐correct-­‐on-­‐need-­‐for-­‐
energy-­‐diversity/article_29de4c86-­‐b639-­‐5f33-­‐a937-­‐4ede071072b8.html#ixzz2THSRya00 CCL FILENAME 2013 05 12 WiscStateJournal Fay LTE Still column correct on need for energy diversity DENVER, COLORADO OPED, MAY 11, 2013 A federal tax on carbon Re: “A job killer or job creator? Beyond the rhetoric of the renewable mandate,” May 5 Perspective article.
The most important point in Allen Best’s announced plans to get legislation on the article is in his last paragraph, where he says Senate floor by summer. Their bill would tax correctly that we are having small, “proxy” carbon at the source and return most of the fights on the state level, when we should be revenue to the public through monthly having a “more sophisticated conversation on dividends. the national level” about a federal tax on Now we are having a sophisticated carbon. conversation! There is growing support for this idea Elizabeth House among economists and legislators, and Sens. Denver Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders have WEB LINK http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2013/05/11/a-­‐federal-­‐tax-­‐on-­‐carbon/22304/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 11 DenverPost House LTE A federal tax on carbon LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 10, 2013 Making the carbon tax work The Post is right to once again ring the bell capita basis, preferably in the form of a direct for a carbon tax. Climate data, particularly payment. The carbon tax must also feature a from the Arctic, have scientists deeply cast-­‐in-­‐stone annual increase, so inventors worried and forecast big trouble ahead if we and entrepreneurs will be motivated to find don’t take prompt action. The market failure the best technical solutions. to properly account for the societal cost of Such a “fee and dividend” approach is the greenhouse gas pollution is crying out for a fairest, most transparent and least vulnerable remedy. to being “gamed” by special interests. We But the best and most politically viable can’t afford to get this wrong. version of a carbon tax is a fully revenue-­‐
Rick Knight neutral one that does not divert any of the Brookfield, Illinois proceeds to pet projects of Congress, even The writer is a volunteer for the those that seem laudable. All proceeds should Citizens Climate Lobby. be returned to the public on an equal per-­‐
WEB LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/making-­‐the-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐
work/2013/05/10/3554db8a-­‐b7e2-­‐11e2-­‐b568-­‐6917f6ac6d9d_story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 05 10 WashingtonPost Knight LTE Making the carbon tax work HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 10, 2013 Pipeline to carry bitumen through Hamilton Protesting oil pipeline foes close Hwy. 6 (May 7) The coverage of the Line 9 protest on bitumen sinks to the bottom of rivers and Highway 6 missed a key point. This wasn't wetlands, making it difficult to remove. just about Enbridge's planned reversal of its The Alberta tarsands is the largest 38-­‐year-­‐old Sarnia-­‐to-­‐Montreal pipeline that industrial project on the planet, and emits passes through rural Hamilton and crosses more greenhouse gases per day than one every major stream and river flowing into million cars driving 50 kilometres each. The Lake Ontario. This was primarily about federal government's push to more than Enbridge's plan to increase the daily volumes double the tarsands' output and export it in the pipeline by 25 per cent and to include unrefined through pipelines like Enbridge's is diluted bitumen from the Alberta tarsands. a crime against humanity. This is the same corrosive bitumen that One disastrous impact reported a few recently blew a 22-­‐foot long rupture in an old pages later in the same issue of The Spectator Arkansas pipeline operated by ExxonMobil. is the acidification of oceans as carbon Nearly three years ago, more than a million dioxide generates carbonic acid. Ocean acidity gallons of diluted bitumen polluted more than has increased 40 per cent and is starting to 60 kilometres of the Kalamazoo River, dissolve the shells of oysters, clams and other sickened over 150 people and forced the shellfish, as well as the plankton that form the evacuation of over 50 homes, many basis of the ocean food chain and provides permanently. That rupture came from the most of the world's oxygen. Enbridge pipeline that feeds Line 9 and Don McLean highlighted the company's bad safety record. Stoney Creek The cleanup may never be completed because WEB LINK http://www.thespec.com/opinion-­‐story/2557591-­‐pipeline-­‐to-­‐carry-­‐bitumen-­‐through-­‐
hamilton/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 10 HamiltonSpectator McLean LTE Pipeline to carry bitumen through Hamilton LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 10, 2013 Fossil fuels always pose [risks of fire and blasts] Regarding “Georgia Power blames workers in Bowen blast” (Metro, May 3), where fossil fuels are burned, fires and explosions are always a risk. Wind or solar generation of electricity does not present such risks. This is yet another reason to switch to renewable energy. Dan May Atlanta WEB LINK http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/readers-write/nXjnd/ CCL FILENAME 2013 05 10 AtlantaJC May LTE Fossil fuels always pose [risks of fire and blasts] SUDBURY, ONTARIO ANNOUNCEMENT, MAY 9, 2013 400 ppms! Food & Four Movies Reserve your tickets on Facebook or at 350.org May 15, 2013, Rainbow Cinemas, Sudbury Fellow Sudburians: on Friday, May 10, 6:20 -­‐ 6:30 -­‐ Wolf Lake Discussion 2013 for the first time in human history atmospheric CO2 reached the milestone of 6:30-­‐ 7:15 -­‐ MOVIE: Do the Math -­‐ It is wrong 400 ppm. The safe amount of atmospheric to wreck the climate and it is wrong to profit CO2 is 350 ppm. from it Join us at Rainbow Cinemas in downtown (running time 42 minutes) Sudbury Wednesday, May 15, 2013 to learn more about the science of climate change and 7:15 -­‐ 7:20 -­‐ Do the Math Discussion -­‐ the solutions. As well, celebrate Sudbury's Divestment from the fossil fuel industry lead environmental legacy. by Pam from Fossil Free Canada. We will be screening four movies and sharing environmentally friendly food. The 7:25 -­‐ 9:10 -­‐ MOVIE: Carbon Nation -­‐ a movies and meal are free of charge. However, climate change movie that doesn't even care if we are raising money to share with you believe in climate change (movie running Parliamentarians the book, THE CASE FOR A tme 86 minutes) CARBON TAX, by Shi-­‐Ling Hsu. Suggested Donation = $10.00 9:10 -­‐ 9:20 -­‐ Citizens Climate Lobby. Interactive discussion on putting a price on SCHEDULE carbon pollution. Lead by Gerry and Cathy from Citizens Climate Lobby. 6:00 to 6:15 -­‐ Socialize with light food 9:20 -­‐ 9:40 Junction Creek Clearwater Revival 6:15-­‐ 6:20 -­‐ MOVIE and PREMIERE: Save Wolf -­‐ one of our environmental success stories in Lake -­‐ did you know the world's largest old Sudbury growth red pine forest is in Sudbury? (running time: 5 minutes) 9:40 -­‐ 10:00 -­‐ Closing social with food CCL FILENAME 2013 05 09 SudburyStar ANNOUNCEMENT 400 ppms – food and four movies APRIL, 2013 Featured Article This year on April 22, individuals and groups will celebrate Earth Day by performing acts of service to the Earth: planting trees, collecting roadside trash, promoting programs for recycling and conservation, and using recyclable containers and packaging. Some people will sign petitions to governments calling for stronger action to stop global warming and reverse environmental destruction. The author of this column describes the challenges faced, explains how faith groups, including the Episcopal Church, are responding, and issues a call for strong, united action to counteract the climate crisis. We have a moral obligation to confront the climate crisis By Ellie Whitney Today, as conditions for life across the planet deteriorate because of the changing climate, we have come to realize that the ways we manufacture and use energy are the chief cause of this distressing trend. Earth’s atmosphere and temperature have varied widely, and from many causes, since the planet’s birth some four and a half billion years ago, but for the past 11,700 years, the climate has been mild and has supported development of the thriving human civilizations with which we share the Earth’s bounties. Throughout this period, the sun’s heat has warmed the planet, and the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases have kept enough warmth from escaping back to space to support us and the natural ecosystems that surround us on land and in the Earth’s oceans. Only within the last 200-­‐some years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has this beneficial balance been disrupted. Fossil fuels — coal, oil and gas — when burned emit heat-­‐trapping “greenhouse” gases that are now accumulating in the atmosphere in above-­‐normal quantities and raising the planet’s temperature. Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is the greatest concern because it lingers in the atmosphere and continues raising the global temperature for decades after it has first accumulated. Atmospheric heat is now accumulating to an unprecedented extent, and heat waves, floods, droughts, fires, violent storms, and record rainfalls and snowfalls are becoming increasingly common. People across the globe are abandoning ruined homes and lands that are rendered uninhabitable by weather disasters. Ecosystems are declining and species extinctions are occurring. Thirty-­‐two academies of science, economists, and other groups now urge the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. They say corrective action is urgently needed. The International Energy Agency issued a report in 2011 that states: “Unless urgent action is taken, calamitous climate change is certain. …There is still time to act, but the window of opportunity is closing. Lags in the replacement of fossil-­‐fuel use by clean energy use have put the world on pace for 6 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of this century. An increase of 6 degrees Celsius is an increase of 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit. When such a large temperature rise occurred 250 million years ago, it extinguished 90 percent of the life on earth. The current rise in temperature is of the same magnitude but occurring faster. It is clear that we must make every effort to halt and reverse this trend, and that means that we must reduce or eliminate all uses of fossil fuels as quickly as we can. Among faith communities, concern about the changing climate is intense. My daughter, Lynn, and I surveyed 20 faith-­‐based groups and four interfaith organizations during 2011 while compiling the booklet Faith Based Statements on Climate Change. We found that all express similar views and calls to action. For example, the Vatican urges “[reduction] worldwide [of] carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-­‐
term stability of the climate system.” It concludes that the cost of this action “pales in comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.” Most groups express profound concern for the poor, the aged, future generations and other species. A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change is a call to “preserve humanity from imminent disaster and to assist the survival of the many diverse and beautiful forms of life on Earth,” asking for action on behalf of “future generations, and the other species that share the biosphere” who “have no voice to ask for our compassion.” A ringing resolution phrased by the Episcopal Church expresses a similar view: “We recognize and affirm the urgent aspirations of environmentally vulnerable communities around the world. To such communities the Episcopal Church has a duty of solidarity and Christian love. We believe that such networks of compassion and support within the Body of Christ may be our last best chance of survival. We call upon the Episcopal Church at every level to live into its prophetic voice for climate justice as part and parcel of our baptismal commitment to ‘justice and peace among all people’ and to ‘respect the dignity of every human being.’” The commendable efforts by individuals and local governments to reduce the uses of fossil fuels — from light-­‐bulb exchanges to green building programs — are too small by themselves to achieve the needed reduction. The climate emergency has reached the point where prompt national and international action is indispensable. What is urgently needed is U.S. government legislation that will rapidly reduce our nation’s fossil-­‐fuel use and prompt similar reductions on the part of other nations. So far, Congress has approved no national policy, nor has it backed any strong international agreements to curb carbon dioxide emissions. There is, however, one step Congress could take to accomplish needed reductions — enactment of a carbon fee, or tax. Such legislation is already in effect in more than 30 U.S. states, Canadian provinces and nations. The principle behind the carbon fee idea is that the most effective way to change consumption patterns is to change the prices of things: if we want less carbon dioxide, we need to make carbon more costly. The concept is gaining traction among economists, politicians and the public. One method gaining favor is known as “carbon fee-­‐and-­‐dividend” (or “carbon tax and rebate”), a system that is embodied in the Climate Protection Act introduced into the U.S. Senate in 2012. A carbon fee-­‐and-­‐dividend system has three working parts: gradually raising fees imposed on the carbon in fuels, rebates of the proceeds to legal residents, and border tariffs to equalize the impacts on countries that do and do not employ such fees. Fees (or taxes) imposed on the carbon contents of fuels can be small the first year and rise gradually until carbon dioxide emissions have stabilized at a defined, gaming by speculators as cap-­‐and-­‐trade acceptable level. This makes fuel prices rise, carbon-­‐limiting schemes proposed earlier but only incrementally. In the first year, for have done. Air and water quality will improve example, the price of gasoline would rise by as clean energy replaces fossil energy. And it 20 cents a gallon. represents a realistic hope for keeping the Once the fees are collected from the planet habitable. companies that sell fossil fuels, most or all of Citizens must encourage members of that money is returned to consumers as Congress to enact carbon fee-­‐and-­‐dividend rebate checks or tax cuts. These will exceed legislation. One powerful advocate of this the fuel-­‐price increases that most consumers legislation is the Citizens Climate Lobby, a face. fast-­‐growing, nonpartisan nonprofit with Border adjustments complete the system. more than 85 chapters across the United Countries that have no carbon-­‐fee system of States and Canada. Its volunteers have visited their own pay a carbon fee to the United every office on Capitol Hill to introduce, States before selling their goods within our explain and promote the proposed legislation. borders. This makes trade fair and also Other powerful advocates are church encourages U.S. trading partners to enact congregations, some of whom have formed their own carbon taxes that would keep alliances with the Citizens Climate Lobby and revenue within their own economies. host chapters and meetings. Overall, this will lower global-­‐warming People of faith have a sacred obligation to emissions, hopefully in time to prevent the preserve a livable world for future most calamitous effects of climate change. generations. Benefits would follow from a carbon fee-­‐
Dr. Ellie Whitney is co-­author of Faith-­‐
and-­‐dividend system, attracting major Based Statements on Climate Change, a survey investments in clean energy technologies, of Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, producing new jobs, reducing security threats indigenous and other religious groups from oil-­‐rich countries and smoothing roller-­‐
published in 2011 and available at coaster price fluctuations that today make amazon.com for $4. This article is revised from planning difficult for both fuel companies and “How to meet the climate crisis,” published in businesses. the Unitarian-­Universalist Association It is revenue neutral, transparent, fair and magazine UU World (Winter 2012). evenhanded. It would not lend itself to For more information on the Citizens Climate Lobby, go to citizensclimatelobby.org. WEB LINK http://www.episcopaljournal.org/?page_id=27 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 00 EpiscopalJournal Whitney FEATURE We have a moral obligation to confront the climate crisis. OAK PARK, ILLINOIS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 30, 2013 Contact leaders for action on climate change I thank the Landmark for pinpointing the "root cause" of wild weather we've been experiencing in recent years. As an energy researcher with almost 40 years of experience, I know the science is unshakably clear. These events are the early symptoms of climate change growing in intensity due to our massive greenhouse gas emissions. If you don't believe me, listen to Tom Skilling, our highly respected Chicago weather expert, or thousands of dedicated climate scientists across the world. Your editorial concludes with "It's high time we took it seriously." But what does taking it seriously mean? Is it enough to beef up our infrastructure to resist extreme weather? Is it enough to "green" our lifestyles and reduce our personal carbon footprints? No. The way to really "take it seriously" is to take it to the politicians. Write or call your congressman and senators to demand legislation that will help cure our fossil fuel addiction. Better yet, join an organization like the Citizens Climate Lobby, and learn how to have a real impact on national policy. We've already changed the chemistry of our planet too much, and it is wrong to leave our children and grandchildren with potentially disastrous consequences. We owe them. Rick Knight Brookfield Editor's note: Rick Knight volunteers for the Chicagoland chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.rblandmark.com/News/Articles/4-­‐30-­‐2013/Contact-­‐leaders-­‐for-­‐action-­‐on-­‐
climate-­‐change/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 30 RiversideBrookfieldLandmark Knight LTE Contact leaders for action on climate change QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 30, 2013 Solar panels and neighbors On the one hand, we will need more solar farms (and wind turbines) to prevent the worst environmental damage from our continued over-­‐reliance on fossil fuels, while continuing to meet our energy needs. On the other hand, maybe NIMBYism will wipe us all out before climate change does! D. R. Tucker Brockton, Massachusetts WEB LINK http://www.wopular.com/dr-­‐tucker-­‐brockton-­‐solar-­‐panels-­‐and-­‐neighbors CCL FILENAME 2013 04 30 PatriotLedger Tucker LTE Solar panels and neighbors HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 29, 2013 Could Toomey help lead the charge for a carbon tax? Richard Whiteford's April 10 op-­‐ed article explains clearly why we need to adopt a carbon tax. But he didn't explain what has to happen for Congress to pass a revenue-­‐
neutral carbon tax bill. The Climate Protection Act of 2013 was introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-­‐Vt., and Barbara Boxer, D-­‐Calif., in February and sent to committee. What will it take to get out of committee, be passed by the Senate and go to the House for consideration? It would surely help to have a least one Republican Senator sign on as a co-­‐sponsor. Pennsylvania has a Republican senator who could support a carbon tax. Sen. Pat Toomey has an outstanding rating from the Republican Liberty Caucus, which considers him to be libertarian-­‐leaning in tax issues. Meanwhile, libertarian law Professor Jonathan Adler writes often about why America should adopt a carbon tax. And Republican George Schultz supports this bill. In response to Whiteford's article, readers should write, call and visit Sen. Toomey's offices asking him to support a carbon tax like the one in The Climate Protection Act of 2013. Toomey is a smart businessman. He will understand why a carbon tax is exactly what we need. He just needs to hear that the public will support him in this effort. Judy Weiss Brookline, Massachusetts WEB LINK http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/04/could_toomey_help_lead_the_charge_for_a_car
bon_tax_pennlive_letters.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 29 PatriotNews Weiss LTE Could Toomey help lead the charge for a carbon tax NORMAN, OKLAHOMA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 29, 2013 Pipeline Stands Opposed On Thursday, April 18, in Grand Island, Neb., the U.S. State Department had its last public comment hearing before making a recommendation to President Obama concerning permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline. I was fortunate to be able to go and witness the resolve of the people of Nebraska and other states to stop the building of that export pipeline. Of the nearly 300 people who testified at the hearing, approximately 23, many of whom were connected to TransCanada in some way, spoke in support of the pipeline. Those speaking against KXL varied in age, race and occupation. Doctors and nurses spoke of treating people effected by the chemicals involved in the processing and mixture of the diluted bitumen for piping. Attorneys spoke of the lack of spill response equipment and procedures that TransCanada was outlining for use in case of a spill. This concern was backed up by several residents from Mayflower, Arkansas and Kalamazoo, Mich., who displayed photos of the horrible damages they face after tar sands “oil” spills in their communities. The people of Kalamazoo have been working on it for three years. Evan Vokes, a metallurgic engineer and TransCanada whistleblower, testified that, “TransCanada has a long history of rhetoric for theoretical quality of pipelines, as opposed to what they have built in the United States. TransCanada has not been honest about its construction quality problems that were and are relevant to this hearing.” “Tar sands’ intrusion ultimately affects our climate negatively,” said Faith Spotted Eagle, counselor and founding grandmother of the Brave Heart Society of the South Dakota Yankton Sioux. “It is unacceptable to create jobs that will harm the unborn. We will not relent in our time to stand firm to oppose Keystone XL.” Most speakers were ranchers and farmers who had been on their land an average of five generations and who were not willing to give it up for a foreign corporation. Nor were they willing to put their families and farms at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. More than a few of those grizzled old farmers said that they would lay down their lives before they would let the pipeline cross their land. One rancher’s 16-­‐year-­‐old daughter, Helen Winston, spoke for the crowd when she read into the record the poem she had written for the hearing: Do you see us? A sea of desperate faces undulating in the winds of tyranny But even as we are frozen and blown around, we do not bend Do you see us? Standing tall together despite the cold, exhaustion and weariness woven into our expressions Regardless of the physical toll this fight has taken upon us, we still stand tall Because here in Nebraska, we’re not in the ground in Holt County to smile up at us business of leaving our neighbors to be Because you can feel us beaten into a corner We are many peoples We refuse to give up, even though at times We are a nation we’ve been on the brink of doing so We are tectonic Do you see us? We are the farmers, the ranchers, the Standing on street corners with our signs teachers, the taxpayers held high We are the future Marching down sidewalks shoulder to We will fight to our last for this place shoulder Because, look around: what do you see Bowing our heads in silent prayer as we here that’s not worth fighting for? join hands and hold firm despite the cold And should the president make the wrong Do you hear us? decision Shouting from every rooftop A shockwave will run itself around the Chanting at every rally world Singing our songs of freedom even as the You will call upon us and ask: “What the hands of TransCanada seek to smother us hell was that?” The earth shudders and trembles beneath And we will reply in unison: “Can you feel our feet us now?” The wind sings our names as it dances Thank you, over the Sandhills Nancy Smart, The mighty Ogallala peeks above the Norman Citizen’s Climate Lobby WEB LINK http://normantranscript.com/letters/x326071690/Pipeline-­‐stands-­‐opposed CCL FILENAME 2013 04 29 NormanTranscript Smart LTE Pipeline stands opposed MISSOULA, MONTANA COLUMN, APRIL 29, 2013 Collaboration needed in support of a carbon tax It was a relief to listen to President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech and hear him say, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” A few months have passed since this statement. Now the question is, how exactly will America address the threat of climate change? Without much hope of Congress quickly passing effective climate legislation, President Obama will probably be forced to use his executive powers and ask the Environmental Protection Agency to implement more stringent guidelines regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans, who are likely to find this option unattractive, might want to consider leading the way to another solution: a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon. This market-­‐based solution places a tax on carbon directly at its source, at the gas/oil well, coal mine or port of entry. Starting at $15/ton, this tax would increase $10 each year. Within a decade clean energy would be cheaper than fossil fuels, even accounting for the billions in subsidies, which the fossil fuel industry currently enjoys. All the money collected from this tax is then distributed back to the American people on an equitable basis through a monthly bonus check. Under this scenario, 70 percent of Americans would earn as much or more as they would pay for the increased cost of energy and associated goods – a crucial selling point as it does not create an undue burden for the poor or middle class. With a clear, consistent market signal, entrepreneurs and investors would jump into the green economy, helping us to pull ahead in world renewable energy rankings. In an Aug. 12, 2012, article on Bloomberg.com, Ernst & Young awarded China No. 1 ranking with a score of 70.2, while the U.S. and Germany tied for second place, both with scores of 66. An on-­‐again, off-­‐again wind energy production tax credit policy is partly to blame for our country’s position in these rankings. Uncertainty regarding the future of renewables would be eliminated with the passage of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, and we would create millions of new, green jobs as we move forward to become the world leader in renewable energy rankings. Any cries you might hear of, “This will kill jobs!” is simply untrue. In his book “Building a Green Economy,” Joseph Robertson reports the following: “Direct job creation for oil and natural gas is 0.8 jobs per $1 million in output, and coal’s is 1.9 jobs per $1 million in output. Compare that to building retrofits for energy efficiency, which directly create seven jobs per $1 million in output. Mass transit services create 11 and the smart grid creates 4.3. Wind, solar and biomass power generation create 4.6, 5.4 and 7.4 jobs per $1 million in output respectively.” So back to the Republicans. What’s not to love about the revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon? It does not increase the size of government. It provides a market-­‐based solution to the climate change crisis. It encourages innovation and entrepreneurial efforts. And it creates jobs. America is a can-­‐do nation. We just need a little nudge in the right direction; then our inventors, investors, and technicians can take it from there. Mr. President, thank you for your commitment to addressing climate change this term. Now I ask the Republican members of Congress to take the lead by passing a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon. Our children and future generations are counting on you. Lynate Pettengill is a regional coordinator with Citizens Climate Lobby. She will be presenting a workshop on Wednesday, May 1, from 6-­9 p.m. at the Missoula Friends Meetinghouse, located at 12th and Grant, on this climate change legislation. WEB LINK http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/collaboration-­‐needed-­‐in-­‐support-­‐of-­‐a-­‐
carbon-­‐tax/article_bc39f94c-­‐b0d4-­‐11e2-­‐b12a-­‐0019bb2963f4.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 29 Missoulian Pettengill COLUMN Collaboration needed in support of a carbon tax LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 28, 2013 Economic impact of Keystone small, but harm to environment great According to an April 16 article, Gov. Scott sands would produce almost 83 billion tons Walker wrote a letter to Secretary of State of carbon dioxide. John Kerry urging approval of the Keystone Walker is wrong. The Keystone XL would have little positive economic impact. It would, XL pipeline because it would have an “enormously positive economic impact.” however, have an enormously negative But according to the State Department, the impact on the environment. And the economy pipeline would create few permanent jobs. is a subset of the environment. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, the Steve Lewis Alberta tar sands contain 175 billion barrels Madison of oil, and burning all the oil in the Alberta tar WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/steve-­‐lewis-­‐economic-­‐impact-­‐of-­‐keystone-­‐
small-­‐but-­‐harm-­‐to/article_f6a2d94c-­‐b1c2-­‐5ae0-­‐9f67-­‐602655a68056.html#ixzz2Rxz4Q4tc CCL FILENAME 2013 04 28 WisconsinStateJournal Lewis LTE Economic impact of Keystone small, but harm to environment great TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN FORUM, APRIL 28, 2013 Time for carbon tax on energy producers By Maura Brennan America is finally facing the reality of the climate crisis. According to a recent Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans are worried about climate change. The insurance industry, the Catholic Church, and many groups in between have issued a call to action. While it is too bad that it has taken destructive storms, crop-­‐killing droughts, wildfires and floods, the good news is that we are turning toward solutions. In conversations across the political spectrum, a carbon tax is the solution that is rising to the forefront. Economists, environmentalists and business leaders support a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon as a win-­‐win solution to the climate crisis. Here’s how it works. The energy producers are charged a fee for the amount of CO2 pollution that will be produced by their fossil fuels. The fee is assessed at the source of entry (the mine, the well, the port). This money is passed on equally to citizens as a dividend (monthly check), to offset the increased costs of energy. (It is estimated that a fee of $15/per ton of carbon would result in a 15-­‐cent rise in the price of gasoline.) Free-­‐
market forces would drive the transition to a clean energy economy. Because it is market driven, a carbon tax has the support of many multi-­‐national corporations, such as Kodak, ING, Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. ExxonMobil has also supported a carbon tax since 2009, when then-­‐CEO, Rex Tillerson, said a revenue neutral carbon tax is “the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions.” Gregory Mankiw, Harvard professor and economic advisor to former President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, agrees, as do conservative economists Arthur Laffer, former economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, and George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Reagan. This solution is slowly gaining political traction. The Climate Protection Act, introduced on Feb. 14 by Barbara Boxer. D-­‐
Calif., and Bernie Sanders, D-­‐Vt., provides for a “fee and dividend” carbon tax. Unfortunately, the same gridlock that has gripped Washington on other issues poses the same challenge to such legislation, and the bill is expected to face an uphill battle. The recently formed Northern Michigan Citizens Climate Lobby wants to change that. The purpose of the organization is to “create the political will for a stable climate.” Our group is one of 80 CCL groups across the United States that meet monthly. Together we learn about climate change, how to talk to our neighbors about it, and how to About the author: Maura Brennan is effectively lobby our elected leaders to take a local attorney and activist, and co-­
responsible action, which we believe is a chair of the Northern Michigan revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. Citizen’s Climate Lobby. She can be Northern Michigan CCL meets the first reached by e-­mail at: Saturday of the Month at 12:30 at the offices [email protected] of the Michigan Land Use Institute, 148 E. Front St., Suite 301. All are welcome to attend. WEB LINK http://record-­‐eagle.com/opinion/x326070486/Forum-­‐Time-­‐for-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐on-­‐energy-­‐
producers/print CCL FILENAME 2013 04 28 TraverseCityRecordEagle Brennan FORUM Time for carbon tax on energy producers HEATHSVILLE, VIRGINIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 28, 2013 Mitigating change Earth Day was April 22. It is an annual day on which events were held worldwide to demonstrate support for environmental protection. The name and concept of Earth Day dates back to 1969 when the primary concerns were preservation of forests and regional ecosystems. Today the concerns are global, and more serious. According to Munich RE, one of the world’s major insurance companies, the number of climatological events (extreme temperature, drought, forest fires) resulting in major claims has increased by over 300% since 1980. Similar increases have occurred in hydrological (floods, landslides) and meteorological events (storms). These increases have paralleled and are attributed to increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans. Another new report, entitled “In the Path of the Storm” published by Environment America Research & Policy Center examined county-­‐level weather related disaster declaration data from FEMA for 2007 through 2012 to determine how many Americans live in counties hit by recent weather disasters. Since 2007 in our state, 9 out of 10 Virginians lived in federally declared weather-­‐related disaster areas. In 2012 alone, 82 Virginia counties were impacted involving nearly 3.5 million people. Nationally, 11 weather disasters inflicted economic damages of $1 billion or more. Every weather event is a product of a climate system where global warming “injects steroids” into the equation though in different ways for different types of extreme weather. Like in sports, not every good play depended on steroids and not every weather event is outside normal boundaries. However, the scientific consensus is that it is virtually certain that hot days will become hotter and extreme precipitation events will continue to increase worldwide. Storms will become stronger as more energy and more moisture are available in the warming atmosphere. These will increase and get more serious as long as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The leading candidate for mitigating climate change and reducing future impacts is a carbon tax. Such a tax finds support among conservative economists like Art Laffer (Reagan administration), Greg Mankiw (George W. Bush and Romney advisor) and Nobel laureate Gary Becker, because it employs the power of the free market to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that heat up the planet. It corrects the distortion in the marketplace that keeps the price of fossil fuels low and therefore unaccountable for the damage they do to our society. Fixing that distortion makes clean energy and efficiency more attractive to investors and consumers, facilitating a shift away from carbon-­‐based energy. Making the tax revenue-­‐neutral, by giving the proceeds back to the American people, accomplishes two objectives conservatives find to their liking: it keeps the government from getting bigger, and it shields households from the economic impact of higher energy costs associated with the carbon tax. Gregory Haugan, Citizens Climate Lobby Group Leader Heathsville, Virginia CCL FILENAME 2013 04 28 NorthumberlandEcho Haugan LTE Mitigating Change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 28, 2013 Firm would win points by joining protesters survival in a world where they must dial back significantly on operations if modern society is to survive man-­‐made catastrophic climate change. Rather than fighting protesters who are against the pipeline, Portland Pipe Line Corp. should be fighting for climate and energy legislation that provides direction and predictability for how the United States will wean itself off of fossil fuels. The most promising and economically efficient way of doing that is to implement a gradually increasing tax on fossil fuels at their source and return all proceeds to households equally. Legislation proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, includes a carbon tax, but the bill could be improved significantly by being made revenue neutral so it does not fund new government programs. With guaranteed price increases for fossil fuels in the pipeline for the foreseeable future, a US clean-­‐energy revolution would begin for real. Many of the protesters Portland Pipe Line is fighting support the idea of a revenue-­‐
neutral carbon tax. No one would question the company’s intention of being a good neighbor if it joined the protesters’ fight for a sustainable climate. F R E D F IE LD F OR T H E B OSTON GLOB E
A tanker prepared to offload crude oil in South Portland,
Maine.
Gary Rucinski Northeast regional coordinator Citizens Climate Lobby Newton, Massachusetts THE ARTICLE “No end to oil fight” (Money & Careers, April 21) perfectly portrays the dilemma of fossil fuel companies fighting for WEB LINK http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2013/04/27/pipeline-­‐firm-­‐would-­‐win-­‐points-­‐
joining-­‐protesters/hrJsAgDtqLFCQoVr0F00GO/story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 28 BostonGlobe Rucinski LTE Firm would win points by joining protesters AUSTIN, TEXAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 28, 2013 Untitled Letter (re April 22 commentary “Green jobs fine, but jobs of oil, gas boom are real”) While I am pleased that pollution levels have gone down since the first Earth Day, we still have room for improvement. I find it disturbing that Kathleen Hartnett White criticizes the idea of making the environment an organizing principle of our economy with the words: “Such a nostrum is not only unrealistic but dangerously elevates the natural world above real human beings.” Human beings are part of the natural world. By taking care of our natural world, we are taking care of ourselves. We should not be short-­‐sighted and so obsessed with jobs numbers that we don’t take advantage of the opportunities that we have. Texas is blessed with plenty of sun and wind — investing in those energy sources is an investment in our natural world, and in ourselves. Meaghan Dinan Austin WEB LINK http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐0429/nXXqm/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 28 AustinAmericanStatesman Dinan LTE Untitled letter re April 22 commentary LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 27, 2013 The VIA Bombing Plot Re: Surprise, surprise: terror laws, arrests on same day, April 24 I am very confused. Two bad guys set off bombs and kill people and an entire city shuts down until they are in custody. The authorities spend more than $300 million of taxpayer money. A company breaks laws and their factory becomes a much larger bomb that kills way more people and what happens? Nothing really. An “accident.” Another company has a broken pipeline and evacuates an entire neighbourhood and keeps out media on threat of arrest and is given control of a no-­‐fly zone for an indefinite period of time. So companies are people until they break the law, and then they just become companies again when something bad happens so they are not liable. For example, BP pollutes the Gulf of Mexico and nobody is arrested? Oil companies pollute the entire atmosphere, pay nearly a billion dollars to convince the public that climate change is not happening (by lying and misinformation) and who is arrested? And now climate change is abruptly occurring and destabilizing the global weather patterns causing extreme weather events that are costing billions, threatening food production, and will drive economies and civilizations to their knees. Is it any wonder that people are fed-­‐up with governments and “authorities”? We will all suffer under abrupt climate changes that are underway. Which will be used by governments and “authorities” to gain even more control. Paul H. Beckwith Ottawa WEB LINK http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2013/04/27/the_via_bombing_plot.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 27 TorontoStar Beckwith LTE The VIA bombing plot MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 26, 2013 Treat the Earth with care Gender, race and class make no difference; the Earth sustains us all. We should treat it with care, and a good start would be to cease pollution. It is critical that we change our ways for ourselves and those who will inherit the planet. Become a part of the solution. What some people may not know is that they are not alone in changing the world; there are other people helping. Making the Earth healthy is a group effort -­‐ the more people the better. Any legislation to slow climate change would be beneficial for everyone. There are multiple groups you can join such as the Citizens Climate Lobby, the 350 Movement, Alliance for Climate Protection and many more. You could write letters to politicians, periodicals or even blogs. Small actions in one's daily life could help tremendously, such as turning off electronics when they are not in use or recycling items normally put in the trash. Taking it one step further, one can help to clean up a highway or plant a tree and by doing so help directly and set a good example for others. Sarah Higgens Racine WEB LINK http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters27-­‐qp9n4k9-­‐204929621.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 26 MilwJS Higgens LTE Treat the Earth with care MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 26, 2013 Enact carbon fee and dividend While I wholeheartedly agree with the opinions expressed by Eric Hansen in "350: What we need to save the planet," I want to point out that any efforts to save the planet are, in fact, efforts to save ourselves (Perspectives, April 23). Planet Earth will carry on regardless of whether or not we can substantially reduce our CO2 emissions. Given the serious threat that climate change poses to our most basic needs of food and water, that could mean a significantly smaller number of us will be along for the ride. How tragic that we don't have any alternatives to fossil fuels. Oh, wait, we do. There are renewable energy sources such as the sun, the wind and the coastlines' waves. So what are we waiting for? Legislation to speed along the inevitable transition to renewable energy is critical. Have the fossil fuel companies pay a carbon tax at the mine or port of entry. Then distribute that money to all United States citizens on a monthly or yearly basis to help cover the higher costs being passed on to them. This approach, called carbon fee and dividend, would spur investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Dawn Ramin Oregon WEB LINK http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters27-­‐qp9n4k9-­‐204929621.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 26 MilwaukeeJS Ramin LTE Enact carbon fee and dividend AUSTIN, TEXAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 26, 2013
Untitled letter (Too quick to criticize senators; Investigation of AFD pointless; Stay safe, cyclists) Re: April 22 article, “Green jobs fine, but jobs of oil, gas boom are real.” In Kathleen White’s piece published with significant irony on Earth Day, she lays out her case for why fossil fuel jobs are a force for economic good while green jobs are a force of elitist evil. What she fails to mention is that oil and natural gas out-­‐compete clean energy, and the jobs that come with it, because the damage they do is not reflected in their price. It would be interesting to see the lay of the land if the true cost of carbon was imposed on these fuels at the source. Even her organization’s hero, Ronald Reagan’s economic adviser Dr. Arthur Laffer, calls a tax on carbon a “no brainer.” You don’t tax things you need more of, you tax things you need less of, like carbon emissions. Let’s employ some of that celebrated human intelligence and private market forces to continue to protect our environment. Susan Adams Austin WEB LINK http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐0427/nXYns/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 26 AustinAmericanStatesman Adams LTE Untitled letter – Too quick to criticize YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 25, 2013 Wanted: Republican leaders on climate change With the tragedy at the Boston Marathon at the forefront of the nightly news, the extreme weather disaster unfolding in the Midwest has received little attention. The Midwest has been on a see-­‐saw ride of extreme drought to extreme flooding recently. Only a few months ago, water levels on the Mississippi were so low that Army Corps engineers were blowing up rocks on the river bottom to allow barge traffic to continue without scraping bottom. Now they are experiencing record flooding from what NBC News reported is "a result of last week's storms dumping a month's worth of rain in just a few hours." This comes a year after a record drought destroyed crops over much of the Midwest and two years after record flooding forced the Army Corps in 2011 to blow up levees and flood farmlands to alleviate pressure due to high water levels. Such is becoming the new norm thanks to climate change, according to meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters: "The new normal in the coming decades is going to be more and more extreme flood-­‐drought-­‐flood cycles like we are seeing now in the Midwest, and this sort of weather whiplash is going to be an increasingly severe pain in the neck for society." Climate scientists have long been telling us that a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. Scientists atclimatecommunication.org explain our wild flood-­‐drought swings: "A 4% increase in atmospheric moisture has been observed and that is consistent with a warming climate .... The increased moisture in the atmosphere is driving the shift to heavier but less frequent rains -­‐-­‐ 'when it rains, it pours.' While an atmosphere that holds more moisture has greater potential to produce heavier precipitation, precipitation events also become less frequent and shorter, as it takes longer to recharge the atmosphere with moisture. By analogy, a larger bucket holds and dumps more water, but takes longer to refill." Even with worsening extreme weather, some Republicans remain "skeptical" on the issue of climate change. To those individuals I would ask them to consider the following. A study by James Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, found that of the 13,950 peer-­‐reviewed articles on climate change from 1991-­‐2012, a total of 24 papers "reject human-­‐caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming." These 13,950 articles had a total of 33,690 authors while the number of authors of "skeptics" papers had a total of 34. This is the extent of the "debate" about the science. The number of scientists who say that we are causing climate change by burning fossil fuels would fill York's Sovereign Stadium four and a half times over; the number of scientists who disagree wouldn't fill a bus to get to the game. Also recently, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication took a national survey of 726 adults who recently identified as a Republican or a Republican-­‐leaning independent. Some highlights of the poll: A majority of respondents (52 percent) believe climate change is happening, while 26 percent believe it is not, and 22 percent say they "don't know." By a margin of 2 to 1, respondents say America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use. Republicans and Republican-­‐leaning independents prefer clean energy as the basis of America's energy future and say the benefits of clean energy, such as energy independence (66 percent), saving resources for our children and grandchildren (57 percent), and providing a better life for our children and grandchildren (56 percent) outweigh the costs, such as more government regulation (42 percent) or higher energy prices (31 percent). Only one-­‐third of respondents agree with the Republican Party's position on climate change, while about half agree with the party's position on how to meet America's energy needs. A large majority of respondents say their elected representatives are unresponsive to their views about climate change. There is a solution that Republicans can get behind. A revenue-­‐neutral, steadily rising carbon tax on CO2 emissions with all of the revenue returned to every household is a free-­‐market, conservative approach that will not grow the size of government and at the same time will shield our economy from the higher energy costs associated with a carbon tax. A carbon tax would send a clear price signal to the market that industries and consumers should be switching to carbon-­‐
free forms of energy. Let's be honest, we need Republican leadership on this issue, because without Republican support, there is little hope of passing any climate legislation in either the Senate or the House. Also, because physics dictates that climate change isn't going to go away, it will worsen -­‐-­‐ dramatically, and future generations of Republicans will suffer the consequences of our inaction now. Jon Clark Mid-­Atlantic Regional Coordinator Citizens Climate Lobby Dover WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_23106381/wanted-­‐republican-­‐leaders-­‐climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 YorkDailyRecord Clark LTE Wanted – Republican leaders on climate change APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 25, 2013 Support green technologies On Earth Day, Monday, April 22, you may have looked out the window at the blanket of snow thought: “If it’s cold enough to snow in late April, maybe we don’t have to worry so much about global warming.” Interestingly, meteorologists and climatologists seem to think there is more freakish weather happening as a result of climate change: more heat, more drought, more violent storms, more extended cold and snow. The greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere seems to be associated with weather extremes. Not all the extra water is in vapor form. There are rapidly rising sea levels inundating islands in the Pacific and making them uninhabitable. The documentary “Chasing Ice,” available on television and the Internet, shows the relentless acceleration of glacier melt in Greenland, Iceland, North America, Asia and Antarctica. This acceleration, according to most scientists, is not a “natural” phenomenon, not “cyclical,” and it hasn’t happened before. It’s accompanied by a rise in carbon levels in the earth’s atmosphere, and an increase in the extinction of plant and animal species. Like apologists for the smoking industry before them, researchers funded by energy companies dependent on selling oil and coal, want us to believe these substances too can be harmless to our lives. Public health studies show otherwise. It’s time to join the president and the governor in working for the success of a growing industry around green techno-­‐
logies: solar, wind, hydro, and biomass. We’ve already waited too long; our children’s lives are already diminished. Now is the time for U.S. Rep. John Kline, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, and Minnesota legislators to act. Judy Finger Apple Valley WEB LINK http://sunthisweek.com/2013/04/25/support-­‐green-­‐technologies/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 SunThisWeek Finger LTE Support green technologies NEWS ITEM, APRIL 25, 2013 City announces 2013 Sustainable Santa Fe award winners The 2013 Sustainable Santa Fe Award winners will be honored at a public celebration from 6 to 7 p.m. Saturday at the Eldorado Hotel. The awards are given by the city of Santa Fe, with winners selected by the Sustainable Santa Fe committee. Community Outreach Award: Solarize the Roundhouse A group of Climate Masters students (part of a Santa Fe Watershed Association project modeled on the Master Gardener program) worked with Sen. Peter Wirth, D-­‐Santa Fe, to try to secure state funds to install solar panels on the roof of the Capitol Complex parking garage. The panels would offset an estimated $60,000 in monthly electric bills at the Roundhouse. Lawmakers approved $185,000 for the project, but Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed the funds. Environmental Advocacy Award: Citizens Climate Lobby The Santa Fe Citizens Climate Lobby launched in November as part of a network of more than 90 citizen chapters across the United States and Canada lobbying for a stable climate. SFCCL members talk to public groups, write letters and work with lawmakers. SFCCL members have been effective in educating the public about a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. Environmental Justice Award: 2012 Traditional Agriculture & Sustainable Living Conference The annual conference began eight years ago to bring awareness to the prevalence, presence and threat of genetically modified seeds. The conference also supports building sustainable communities and a healthy ecology while reviving traditional healing, and indigenous agricultural practices. The conference is organized by the Pueblo of Tesuque, Four Bridges Traveling Permaculture Institute, Sostenga at Northern New Mexico College and the support of many other organizations and volunteers. Food System Award: Gaia Gardens Gaia Gardens is a nonprofit, urban neighborhood farm in Santa Fe where children and their families learn firsthand how to cultivate the soil, grow vegetables, tend to chickens, harvest crops and celebrate the joy of consuming what they have helped create. Gaia Gardens offers workshops and field trips for neighborhood schools, nonprofit youth organizations and homeless organizations on gardening, soil preparation techniques, food preservation, herbal medicine and water harvesting. More than 1,500 people visited Gaia Gardens in 2012. Water Conservation Award: Santa Fe Public School’s Water Conservation Program Santa Fe Public Schools used 55.4 million gallons of water for buildings and irrigation combined in fiscal year 2011. In 2012, the school district installed half-­‐gallon-­‐per-­‐
minute aerators on hand-­‐washing sinks across the district, required 1.28-­‐gallon flush toilets and 0.5 gallon-­‐flush urinals in all remodels and new builds, tightened its irrigation schedules, installed “smart” water meters on their top users to detect leaks quickly, and encouraged all staff to report water waste in their buildings. The district reduced water use by more than 6 million gallons. Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency Award: Sol Not Coal Installations Sol Not Coal by New Energy Economy, a Santa Fe nonprofit, partnered with public and private organizations to get solar panels installed on local community buildings, including the fire station on Cerrillos Road and the Taytsugeh Oweengeh Intergenerational Center at Tesuque Pueblo. Sol Not Coal also contributes to local economic development by training new local solar technicians in partnership with Positive Energy, a Santa Fe photovoltaic installation company. Affordable Green Building Award: Piñon Ridge Homewise 39 Home Housing Development Piñon Ridge, located on Santa Fe’s north side, is a development designed by Homewise. The homes at Piñon Ridge were constructed to exceed the green building codes and standards required by the city of Santa Fe and qualify for Build Green New Mexico’s Gold rating. Each uses 40 percent less water and energy compared to a house built by standard code. Green Building Award: 205 West Cordova Road House This home exemplifies leading building-­‐
science practices. The house meets the requirements of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Challenge Home program, and operates 48 percent more efficiently than a standard code house, without using active solar electricity equipment. The house is outfitted with highly water-­‐efficient fixtures, and gray water is piped from the master bathtub and reused. A rainwater cistern with 1,340-­‐gallon capacity and an ultra-­‐high-­‐
efficient clothes washer have also been installed. Climate Adaptation Award: Rocky Mountain Survivor Queenbee Cooperative The Rocky Mountain Survivor Queenbee Cooperative was established in the spring of 2012 to promote survivor cross-­‐stock queen bee breeding through chemical-­‐free management, conscientious production and professional development. Participating beekeepers are spread across a “wild” landscape from Santa Fe to Fort Collins, Colo.; they are dedicated to promoting pollinator stewardship and seek to establish a network of small-­‐scale bee producers and enthusiasts. Green Economic Development Award: Green Lodging Initiative The Green Lodging Initiative will help the Santa Fe lodging industry decrease water use, toxic-­‐waste disposal and carbon emissions. The initiative uses the national Green Concierge Certification program through HospitalityGreen. Participating lodging providers will save money, upgrade their facility to meet growing market expectations and increase their competitive advantage in an expanding green hospitality marketplace. Low Carbon Transportation Award: Linograt ChargePoint Charge Station Linograt LLC provided the first permanent, public-­‐access, plug-­‐in vehicle charging station at a solar offset commercial location in Santa Fe. The system is networked with map locators, automated billing, card access and data collection with online reporting. Waste Reduction Award: Water Buffalo The Water Buffalo project is a portable water-­‐filtration and chilling unit to fill reusable or compostable cups and avoid the use of plastic water bottles. Water Buffalo takes tap water available at event locations, uses carbon filtration to remove chlorine and then chills it. Green Journalism Award: Occupy New Mexico’s Website and Social Media Since January 2012, the website OccupyNewMexico.org has provided independent journalistic coverage on the Occupy movements in New Mexico and on related movements for social and Youth-­Led Award: Institute of American environmental justice. The website focused Indian Arts Student Sustainability Group on video journalism from the front lines of The Institute of American Indian Arts events as well as using Twitter, YouTube and Student Sustainability Leadership cultivates Facebook to connect with thousands of environmentally conscious student leaders followers. through hands-­‐on learning, community engagement and education in order to make IAIA a carbon-­‐neutral campus and support cultures while protecting the Earth. WEB LINK http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_af0fdcc3-­‐24f2-­‐5b46-­‐9378 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 SantaFeNewMexican NEWS ARTICLE City announces 2013 Sustainable Santa Fe award winners SYRACUSE, NEW YORK LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 25, 2013 Attendance at 'Chasing Ice' movie shows Central New Yorkers care about climate change Earth Day, April 22, 2013, will be remembered in Syracuse as the day the people of CNY demonstrated with their feet that climate change is an issue of concern. We filled the 700-­‐seat Palace Theatre and had to turn people away at the door. We hope our local politicians will take notice that the people of Central New York are concerned about issues of sustainability and climate change. The city of Syracuse and Onondaga County both need to adopt plans that will promote growth that takes into account factors such as our carbon footprint. In the short run it is almost impossible to see the connection between how we live in Central New York and what happens in the Arctic, but there is a connection. As meteorologist Dave Eichorn shared on Monday evening, the melting of the glaciers in the Arctic affect our weather systems in Central New York. We do need to be concerned about the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic. GreeningUSA thanks the community for coming to see "Chasing Ice'' and demonstrating their interest in the important issue of climate change. Peter Wirth GreeningUSA Fayetteville WEB LINK http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/04/attendance_at_chasing_ice_movi.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 PostStandard Wirth LTE Attendance at Chasing Ice movie shows central New Yorkers care about climate change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 25, 2013
Public Sentiment about the Keystone Oil Pipeline Joe Nocera is right that “the notion, pushed Together, both a carbon fee and dividend by environmentalists, that blocking the oil and stopping the Keystone pipeline will spur sands will spur green energy is delusion.” private investments in research, development Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline alone will and the green energy sector and help lower have little impact. But those opposed to carbon emissions. An added bonus: the Keystone are not so narrowly focused on government can stop choosing energy their mission. We also advocate putting a true winners and losers. price on burning fossil fuels, such as via a Mr. Nocera needs to remember one thing revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee and dividend that about us environmentalists: we can walk and steadily increases over time, with 100 chew gum at the same time. percent of the revenues returned to all Ashley Hunt-­Martorano households. Medford, New York WEB LINK http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/public-­‐sentiment-­‐about-­‐the-­‐keystone-­‐oil-­‐
pipeline.html?smid=tw-­‐share&_r=3& CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 NewYorkTimes Hunt-­‐Martorano LTE Public sentiment about the Keystone oil pipeline CINCINNATI, OHIO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 25, 2013 The tide is turning against carbon pollution My one addition to the column “Mourning natural gas that, when burned, would create a on this Earth Day” (April 22) would be “don’t ton of carbon dioxide. This would make fossil give up!” The tide is turning. In the last five fuels slightly more expensive and so reduce years, more than 150 coal plants have been their use. It would then be made revenue-­‐
shut down. Who would’ve predicted that? We neutral by return-­‐ ing the revenue to now need to enact a revenue-­‐ neutral carbon taxpayers. fee. The fee would be assessed whenever a Doug Bell company produces enough oil, coal or Kenwood WEB LINK http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2013/04/25/the-­‐tide-­‐is-­‐turning-­‐against-­‐carbon-­‐pollution/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 CincinnatiEnquirer Bell LTE Tide is turning against carbon pollution ASBURY PARK, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 24, 2013 Officials must acknowledge reality of climate change Kudos to the Asbury Park Press editorial greenhouse gas emissions and spur American board for the sensible editorial, “Stop enterprise. We do not need to fear this shift. ignoring climate change,” April 2l. How We do need elected officials who are not refreshing it is to read about facing reality afraid to acknowledge the reality of climate and doing something about it. change. As the editorial says, “the stakes are Many New Jerseyans care about this issue. enormous.” So, where are our leaders who We’re looking for a “climate hero” who will will take on the challenge of climate change stand up for reality and a livable future. Will and lead the way to a nonpartisan solution this leader be one of our congressional that has a chance of keeping our climate delegation — and why not a Republican? Will within the “just-­‐right” boundaries in which our hero be Gov. Chris Christie, who has civilization developed? national stature? The idea mentioned of a revenue-­‐neutral A shift toward a livable future begins with carbon tax, or “fee-­‐and-­‐dividend,” has been awareness. The Press’ editorial is helping to supported by a wide array of economists. raise the level of enlightenment. Since fossil fuels are now artificially cheap, Now let’s look for that “climate hero” who we should include their true costs in will lead the way toward solutions and a emissions. This would be honesty in pricing, bright future for all. instead of the skewed field we now have. Lynn Dash A true market-­‐based approach would give Middletown renewables a chance, ultimately begin to slow WEB LINK http://www.app.com/article/20130425/NJOPINION02/304250033/Officials-­‐must-­‐
acknowledge-­‐reality-­‐climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 04 25 AsburyParkPress Dash L LTE Officials must acknowledge reality of climate change SUDBURY, ONTARIO, CANADA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 4, 2012 Upfront Climate Costs Must Be Part of Development Re: Anti-­Keystone greens are an XL pain-­-­Lorne Gunter Sun Media columnist Lorne Gunter wants you to believe that it is dangerous to assess climate change impacts when new development projects are being considered by governments. Gunter suggests that paying the costs for assessing the impacts of climate change will lead to a drop in living standards and a rise in government deficits. Gunter's position is not based on sound economics. Where public investments occur, an appropriate cost/benefit analysis are undertaken to demonstrate a project's viability, and whether the project is ultimately in the public interest. A full range of impacts are assessed. Typically, projects that go forward are cost effective and deliver a net public benefit. For too long, the costs of greenhouse gas pollution have not been considered when new developments are proposed. The National Round Table on Environment and Energy has estimated the anticipated costs of climate change to be in the range of $5 billion annually in 2020, and maybe as much as $40 billion annually by 2050. In light of this economic reality, the impacts of carbon pollution from new development absolutely need to be a part of any cost/benefit analysis. For example, when climate change impacts are assessed for a proposed new transportation corridor, preference may be given to low-­‐carbon, cost-­‐effective rail over high-­‐carbon truck traffic. While incorporating climate change impacts into assessments might not be good for big greenhouse gas emitters, in a low-­‐carbon economy there will still be plenty of opportunities for businesses to create jobs, increase prosperity and provide a net benefit to communities. Assessing the impacts of climate change prior to investing public funds is not something to be feared, as Gunter suggests. Instead, with scarce public resources available for development, it only makes sense to look at the complete range of costs prior to committing any public money. I don't understand why Conservative Party shills like Gunter are afraid of assessments which seek to reduce overall costs to the public purse by spending taxpayer's money more effectively. Of course, true conservatives understand the value of wise long-­‐term investment. Steve May Greater Sudbury Steve May is an Officer of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association. WEB LINK http://www.thesudburystar.com/2013/04/24/upfront-­‐climate-­‐costs-­‐must-­‐be-­‐part-­‐of-­‐
development CCL FILENAME 2013 04 24 SudburyStar May LTE Upfront climate costs must be part of development MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 24, 2013 Keystone Pipeline -­ Not too late to hold Obama to his word I believe it’s still possible to call the president and ask him not to approve the laying of Keystone XL. The fossil-­‐fuels industry is lobbying hard to get this pipeline, and the only way to stop it is for citizens to show their opposition. Remember that the president, in his inaugural address, said: “We will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.” His approval of the pipeline would increase our pollution and contradict his statement. So call 202-­‐456-­‐1111 with your vote. Connie Metcalf Fridley WEB LINK http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/204381891.html?refer=y CCL FILENAME 2013 04 24 StarTribune Metcalf LTE Keystone Pipeline – Not too late to hold Obama to his word SUDBURY, ONTARIO, CANADA OPED, APRIL 24, 2013 Save the Earth by putting a cost on carbon By: Guest Columnists Gerry Labelle and Cathy Orlando Climate change is not only changing weather patterns, it is costing taxpayers money and hurting our economy. To rectify the problem, we need a price on carbon pollution. An article in Forbes magazine on April 15 entitled, “Flooding, fires and food” told readers to “consider what your political leaders are doing to address climate change. Let’s hope, for your wallet’s sake, they’re tackling the issue head-­‐on.” This is an article written for a US audience. However, it no doubt applies to Canada, too. The United States is our biggest trading partner and we, too, are feeling the climate pinch. On April 17, Diana Carney and Canada 2020 brought together a distinguished panel of guests to discuss how to sell carbon pricing to Canadians. The title from a Globe and Mail article about this event clearly defined the take-­‐home message, “Break the deadlock on carbon pricing. It’s hurting Canada’s economy.” Canada needs a transparent price on carbon pollution to help consumers make better choices and inform investors when renewable energy will be cost competitive with fossil fuels. Canada needs a transparent price on carbon pollution ... Here are six ways Canada can reduce carbon pollution. They have been arranged deliberately in order from least to most transparent. -­ Regulation: Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be regulated across economic sectors. This is currently what the USA and Canada are doing. They have yet to regulate greenhouse gas emissions directly from households and the oil and gas sector. Taxpayers pay for regulatory mechanisms through the costs government incurs to monitor and enforce these regulations. -­ Cap and trade with offsets: Hard caps are set on carbon pollution produced by companies and industries. If a company goes over its cap, it can trade with other companies or purchase offsets in an attempt to correct an over-­‐production of CO2. -­ Cap and trade with no offsets: As the name implies, it is almost identical to cap and trade except there is no offsets component. -­ Cap and dividend: The government imposes a cap and if the company or industry goes over the limit, they cannot trade away their over production to others, but instead pay a penalty to the government, which is returned to taxpayers. -­ Carbon tax shift: This is what British Columbia has put in place. Carbon taxes have been imposed on fossil fuels and citizens receive rebate on their income taxes. -­‐ Carbon fee and dividend: A fee on carbon pollution is charged by the government to fossil fuel producers and a dividend cheque of the exact same amount is given back to taxpayers. Carbon Fee and The good news is, we can correct the market Dividend is a two-­‐page bill and the most failure of fossil fuels without damaging our transparent carbon-­‐pricing method. economy and protect the poor and middle-­‐
Missing is the most opaque method of class at the same time. pricing carbon pollution: The status quo. How? As long as carbon polluters do not pay, the Tax carbon pollution and give the revenue taxpayers are footing the bill for the to the Canadian people. tremendous costs in health, security, Gerry Labelle is a former Progressive environmental damage and destructive Conservative candidate in Sudbury. weather made worse by global warming. Cathy Orlando works as the national Correcting this distortion in the manager for Canada’s Citizens Climate marketplace, which economists refer to as Lobby, an international, not-­for-­profit, Pigovian taxation, would allow clean energy non-­partisan and volunteer climate and efficiency to flourish and reduce our use education and lobbying organization. of carbon-­‐based fuels. WEB LINK http://www.northernlife.ca/news/columns/guests/25-­‐Labelle-­‐Orlando.aspx CCL FILENAME 2013 04 24 NorthernLife Labelle & Orlando OPED Save the Earth by putting a cost on carbon LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 24, 2013 Try driving smarter Re "A tax everyone can love," Opinion, April 21 really a fee that the obscenely profitable polluters would have to pay for the carbon dioxide they release into our atmosphere when their fuels are burned. The idea is that all of that revenue would come back to us as a "dividend," so some call this a "fee and dividend" rather than a tax. It would help mitigate the increased costs to consumers of fossil fuel-­‐based energy while our country switches to abundant alternative energies. Passing this fee-­‐and-­‐dividend program is Carbon emissions would be taxed under a proposal pushed y some and former the rbight step atdvocacy oward ag lroups ivable, sustainable lawmakers. (Joe Raedle / Getty Images) future. A lot of people think the revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax would be a tax on citizens; of course, we don't want more of that. But it's Lynne Girdlestone Newhall WEB LINK http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-­‐le-­‐0424-­‐wednesday-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐
20130424,0,5419819.story CCL FILENAME 2013 04 24 LosAngelesTimes Girdlestone LTE Try driving smarter SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA OPED, APRIL 22, 2013 Celebrating good news on Earth Day On this 43rd anniversary of the first Earth Day, several recent good news events for the environment are worth celebrating. Secretary of State John Kerry, during his April 13-­‐15 trip to Asia, signed non-­‐ binding agreements with both China and Japan to cooperate in implementing practical measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The focus will be on post-­‐2020 climate agreements, low emissions development, and building climate-­‐resilient societies. Since the U.S. and China are the world’s largest carbon emitters, their collaboration on climate issues is a hopeful beginning. Petroleum companies continue to re-­‐
evaluate their plans to drill in the Arctic based on Shell’s experience with multiple equipment problems in 2012. stopped all drilling in Alaska’s Arctic seas for 2013, and Conoco-­‐Phillips has now scrapped its Arctic drilling plans for 2014. The operator of the California electric grid announced last week that California has set a wind energy record, producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity for the state — nearly equal to the maximum capacity of both California nuclear power plants combined. Three reporters from a small nonprofit environmental organization called InsideClimate News won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. They were honored for their work on "The Dilbit Disaster: Inside the Biggest Oil Spill You’ve Never Heard Of," a seven-­‐month investigation into the million-­‐
gallon spill of Canadian tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. The Pulitzer committee praised them for their "rigorous reports on flawed regulation of the nation’s oil pipelines, focusing on potential ecological dangers posed by diluted bitumen (or ‘dilbit’), a controversial form of oil." And there’s more good news right in our own back yard, you might say. Lancaster’s Mayor Rex Parris, who would like to see Lancaster become not only the solar capital of California but the "solar energy capital of the world," recently announced that starting on Jan. 1, 2014, all newly constructed single-­‐
family homes must include a 1.0 kW solar system at a minimum. He says changing the building code won’t make the building industry happy, but he and the City Council are willing to take the heat. A large (9.6 megawatt) school project in Lancaster that put solar panels on all carports in 2011 generated $360,000 in energy savings in its first year alone, which proves that renewable energy isn’t just something for tree-­‐huggers, but also makes sound economic sense. Take note, Mayor Kellar! On a planetary scale, perhaps the best environmental good news is that the world can be powered entirely by alternative energy, using [today’s] technology, within 20-­‐
40 years, according to Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson. In a paper he and UC Davis researcher Mark Delucchi wrote in Energy Policy, they assess the costs, technology and material requirements for converting the planet from primarily fossil fuels to wind, water and solar energy. In the plan they devised, wind and solar power would contribute 90 percent of the needed energy, geothermal and hydroelectric sources would each contribute about 4 percent, and wave and tidal power would provide 2 percent. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, concludes, "there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources. It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will." He adds, however, that "it would require an effort comparable to the Apollo moon project or constructing the interstate highway system." Creating the political will for a sustainable environment, then, is clearly the major work we have yet to do, and the first step should be correcting the market failure that keeps fossil fuels artificially cheap. Currently the price of fossil fuels doesn’t take into account their externalities — that is, the damage they cause in terms of global warming and respiratory illness, for example. Federal legislation to put a gradually-­‐
increasing tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels would be the simplest and most effective way to fix that problem and create a realistic, stable price signal. This market-­‐based solution would make sustainable energy more competitive, stimulate innovation in renewable energy development, and fuel the transition to a clean energy future. Returning all carbon tax revenues to households would protect them from bearing the brunt of rising energy costs and motivate energy conservation measures. Tariffs on imports from countries without carbon pricing coupled with refunds to businesses exporting to those countries would protect American businesses and keep a level playing field. Senators Boxer’s and Sanders’ Climate Protection Act of 2013, S.332, is a good start along these lines and deserves our support. Cher Gilmore is a resident of Friendly Valley and group leader of the Santa Clarita chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/94292/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 22 SignalSCV Gilmore OPED Celebrating good news on Earth Day LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 22, 2013 Energy wake-­up call A recent poll of New Mexican voters shows that 67 percent think that drought and wildfires are caused by climate change. How many wake-­‐up calls do we need to get before we take serious action to address climate change? How many wildfires, how many droughts, how many Sandy superstorms do we have to experience before we take action? In the state of New Mexico, we have excellent clean energy resources, (wind, solar, geothermal) that could replace dirty fossil fuels. In the past, generating electricity with coal was cheaper than clean energy. Today, energy efficiency, wind and natural gas can produce electricity energy cheaper than the San Juan coal-­‐fired power plant. The only barrier that we have to transition from coal to clean energy is political will and Public Service Company of New Mexico’s foot-­‐dragging. Larry Wang Santa Fe, New Mexico WEB LINK http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_28d9b8e4-­‐3343-­‐
5680-­‐984b-­‐f6266c7877ae.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 22 SantaFeNewMexican Wang LTE Energy wake-­‐up call HOHENWALD, TENNESSEE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 22, 2013 How a carbon tax can stop global warming The effects of global warming are suddenly alarmingly evident. Across the globe, record-­‐
breaking heat waves, unprecedented floods that inundate entire countries, droughts that last for months, and superstorms that are reported with amazement by the most seasoned meteorologists – these have become the scary new normal. Clearly, it’s time to take action. But what, many of us wonder, can be done? Is it too late? No. In fact, we are at a decisive moment in human history precisely because scientists say it’s not too late to prevent catastrophic climate change. But we must act now to reduce CO2 emissions enough to keep the warming below the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. The only way to do that is to put a price on carbon, and the best way to put a price on carbon is with a carbon tax. If structured correctly, a gradually increasing carbon tax will make fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy more affordable. It will drive investments in solar, wind, and smart grid technology. It will boost the economy and create new green jobs. If all the revenue collected is returned to consumers, the payments will offset the rising cost of fossil fuels as we transition to clean energy. Most importantly, a carbon tax will arrest the soaring fossil fuel emissions that threaten to fry the planet. Pam Jones Nashville WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 04 22 GreenLivingJournal Jones LTE How a carbon tax can stop global warming LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 22, 2013 Global warming must be addressed in water policy Re "Drying times demand water wisdom" (Editorial, April 17): have the right approach in their Climate Following the water-­‐scarcity problem upstream, so to speak, takes us to the real Protection Act: tax carbon to gradually make source: global warming caused by excess fossil fuels more expensive than clean energy, and let the market stimulate innovation in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we want to continue living in California, renewables. we need to do more than catch rainwater and This would boost the economy by practice xeriscaping. National and generating green jobs and keep Southern international policy change is necessary to California and the world livable. stop global warming. Cher Gilmore Sens. Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders Santa Clarita WEB LINK http://www.dailynews.com/ci_23083167/tax-­‐misunderstandings-­‐are-­‐understandable-­‐letters-­‐
editor-­‐tuesday CCL FILENAME 2013 04 22 DailyNews Gilmore LTE Global warming must be addressed in water policy ST LOUIS, MISSOURI POST-­DISPATCH OPED, APRIL 19, 2013 For Earth Day, a GOP free-­market solution to climate change By Brian Ettling Solar panels installed on the roof at MA Tech Services in St. Louis. Monday, April 22, is Earth Day. Lately, our planet is telling us it is not feeling good. According to NASA, 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade on record. 2012 was considered to be the hottest year on record for the U.S. As a result, we saw a record drought and heat wave in St. Louis and the Midwest in 2012. This same heat wave and drought is still gripping the western part of the U.S. Scientists tell us the extra heat in our atmosphere and ocean increased Hurricane Sandy’s damaging impact on New Jersey and New York last October. Since 2010, the Pentagon lists climate change as a top national security threat. The U.S. military thinks climate change may trigger global food and water scarcity, an increase the spread of disease, spur mass migration, or even destabilize nations. Now is the time to act nationally to reduce the chance of nasty consequences to climate change. In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama stated that if Congress does not cut carbon, then “I will.” For conservative Republicans in Congress, they now have two choices. They can watch helplessly as President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency regulates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Efforts to block those regulations would be a waste of time and energy. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants that warm the Earth. The better option for GOP members of Congress is to support a free-­‐market solution to climate change. This year, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-­‐Calif.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-­‐
Vt.) introduced “carbon fee and dividend” legislation. Their bill starts a $20 per ton fee on coal, oil and natural gas when burned. Americans would then receive monthly rebates or “dividends,” to offset the increased prices associated with the fee. This bill would be a giant leap forward for our nation to wean us away from dirty fossil fuels that are warming up our planet to clean renewable energy. Renewable energy is our future. Congress just now needs to make the commitment with a carbon fee and dividend to go all in. A recent Los Angeles Times article said green jobs, such as installing solar panels, maintaining wind turbines, reducing pollution and recycling, natural resource conservation, and environmental education and training, outpaced growth in all other job sectors. Solar photovoltaic costs keep dropping to the point that it is now competitive with fossil fuel electric generation in many U.S. markets. As of 2010, renewable investments globally are exceeding fossil energy investments. According to Forbes Magazine in 2012, China, not the U.S., leads the world in renewable energy investment. Can clean energy power America? Scientists, such as Stanford civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson, think renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydropower, could supply all of the world’s energy by 2030. Oil will continue to become more expensive in future years as China, India and other parts of the world demand more of it. Coal use is declining in the U.S. as electric utilities switch to natural gas, as well as solar, wind and other renewable energy. Can clean energy power Missouri? Since 2008, Rock Port, Mo., located north of St. Joseph, gets up to 100 percent of its electricity from wind turbines. On Dec. 14, 2012, the South County Times reported Jim and Judy Stroup of Concord Village receive up to 87 percent of their annual electricity from their solar panels. In fact, Jim boasts he spent more money in November “on beer and pistachios than I did on gas and electric. And I am not a big drinker.” Carbon fee and dividend provides a market-­‐based solution to climate change that will increase America’s energy independence, improve national security, reduce fossil fuel imports and cut pollution. It will also allow us to compete with China and Germany in the renewable energy market. Our GOP members of Congress — Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, and Missouri Reps. Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer — can be part of the solution by supporting a revenue-­‐neutral fee on carbon. Happy Earth Day! Brian Ettling is a lifelong St. Louis-­area resident and a seasonal park ranger at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. He is the co-­founder of St. Louis Climate Reality Meet Up. He wrote this as a member of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/for-­‐earth-­‐day-­‐a-­‐gop-­‐free-­‐market-­‐solution-­‐
to-­‐climate/article_6f92792e-­‐d029-­‐5e56-­‐a5bc-­‐e955e4f8ab05.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 19 StLouisPostDispatch Ettling OPED For Earth Day a GOP free-­‐market solution to climate change ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 19, 2013 Untitled letter (re building seawalls and not dealing with climate change) The Newport Beach City Council listened we call climate change. Treating the symptom Tuesday to a doctor who prescribed an without addressing the cause of the disease is antidote to rising seas – a $250-­‐million sea a prescription for future disaster. We must wall that would close our harbor at high tide. face the fact that humanity’s behavior But the Council is taking rising seas into imposes enormous cost on the Earth’s account without digging into the cause: life support. At some point, those costs will climate change. become too great to bear. At the federal level it’s the same. The CIA., Climate change can be a catalyst for the USDA the DOD, to name a few, see climate changes that are long overdue. American change as a threat and make plans to address leadership is needed, and Newporters have it, while political leadership in Washington is the political influence to make a difference. largely silent on climate change itself. Congressmen Campbell, Rohrabacher, Royce Everyone talks of seawalls and and Issa pay close attention to their adjustments. We should be working to stop it, constituents in Newport. That’s why it’s and we’re missing out in Newport if we don’t important to let them know about the examine what’s causing the sea to rise. The effective measures we can take. ocean will eventually breach any wall we Former Secretary of State George Schultz construct if we fail to contain climate is pointing the way with a fee and dividend change. Our oceans will also become more plan that puts a price on carbon emissions acidic and threaten the food supply that and gives proceeds back to the people. Many comes from the seas. respected conservatives stand with Schultz Climate change, in truth, represents an and his market-­‐based approach. It will opportunity for Newport, but we have to facilitate our transition to a clean energy in a address the problem and not just signs as way that protects our economy. they appear on the horizon. “Business as Mark Tabbert, founding member, Usual” promises our children a ruined planet. Citizens Climate Lobby, O.C. Rising seas are but a symptom of the disease WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 04 19 OrangeCountyCurrent Tabbert LTE Untitled letter (re building seawalls and not dealing with climate change) LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 19, 2013 Lobbying for the little guy in Washington Kudos on a great editorial about the enormous number of well-­‐paid lobbyists in Washington who take care of everyone's special interests, except the little guy's. Your last sentence says quite rightly that as for the little guy there are no registered lobbyists listed taking care of his interests. However, there is a group of volunteers who lobby day and night for the interests of the little guy against the special interests and well-­‐paid lobbyists in Washington and in state capitals throughout the country. The group is Citizens Climate Lobby, a national organization lobbying for legislation to stabilize the climate because as the climate heats up, it will be the little guy who will be hurt worst. Our unpaid volunteers lobby senators and congressman. We lobby newspaper editors for more coverage on climate change issues. We speak at church groups, corporate offices, schools, and in private homes. We are scientists, business people, retired people, working people, religious leaders, parents and grandparents. We urge readers to call, email and visit their Congressional representatives and senators seeking climate change legislation. We implore the Lowell editorial staff to endorse Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' bill, The Climate Protection Act of 2013. Judy Weiss Brookline WEB LINK http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_23060904/lobbying-­‐little-­‐guy-­‐washington CCL FILENAME 2013 04 19 LowellSun Weiss LTE Lobbying for the little guy in Washington CINCINNATI, OHIO OPED, APRIL 19, 2013 “Carbon Fee Would Be Good for Business” Drought and fires in 2011 cost Texas over $5.5 billion. In 2010, Russia banned grain exports because of persistent drought, raising prices for grain and related products throughout the world and contributing to social instability in several nations. The continuing drought of 2012 cost our national economy between $75 billion and $150 billion thus far. This is the cost of global warming. It’s just beginning and it will get worse. The debate over the reality of global warming is over. According to a study performed at Columbia University, since 1991 13,950 peer-­‐reviewed climate articles have been written, of which only 24 rejected global warming. Even the premier climate skeptic Richard Muller (funded by the Koch brothers), and ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, now acknowledge that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm. The only remaining debate is a fake one, manufactured by the oil and coal industries. Global Warming is a large and growing cost risk that businesses need to address. These costs are uncontrollable externalities that can become major drivers of a company. The increasing risk of these constraints applies not just to a company, but a constraint on its suppliers or customers is a constraint on it as well. One problem created by Global Warming is availability of water. This impacts water needed for crops, to run manufacturing operations, to maintain adequate river levels for barge traffic, and to cool power plants. Also, if the local community is impacted by a water shortage, they may see your company as a part of the problem, sparking consumer backlash. The Insurance industry has noted a dramatic increase in weather-­‐related business losses, attributes them to global warming, and is factoring the expectation of future losses into their rates. Peter Hoppe of reinsurance giant Munich Re states that weather-­‐related insurance losses in North America have "nearly quintupled" since 1980, and that they are due in part to global warming. He said "Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” It’s time for solutions. The best overall plan is to enact a revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee. This would be assessed on each ton of carbon whenever fossil fuels are drilled, mined, or imported. For example, the fee would be assessed on an oil company when it produces enough oil that when burned, would create a ton of carbon dioxide. This would make coal, oil, and natural gas slightly more expensive and incentivize a reduction in their use. The fee would then be off-­‐set, and made revenue-­‐
neutral, by returning the revenue to taxpayers. This off-­‐set could be achieved using any of a variety of methods, e.g. by reducing other taxes or by direct rebates. By returning the fee revenue to taxpayers, the cost to our overall economy would be zero. A carbon fee is a free-­‐market method of allowing for these risks, and over time, reducing them. It would also correct the market pricing of fossil fuels, so that they would more accurately reflect the damage caused by that resource being extracted, moved, and burned. Those who decide to burn fossil fuels should pay the cost of their are good for the economy. Actually, they decision and not force that cost on to others. aren’t cheap at all, even if one ignores the It will allow the free market to decide onrushing costs of global warming. In which energy source is the best. Will it be addition to greenhouse gases, fossil fuels also energy efficiency, solar, wind, natural gas, emit arsenic, mercury, soot, particulates, hydro, or biofuels? Should a company rely sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and benzene. totally on the grid for power or develop its Other costs of their pollution are asthma, own power source on-­‐site? A carbon-­‐fee heart attacks, strokes, several types of cancer, allows each company to decide the best birth defects and abnormal brain solution for them. development in breast-­‐feeding babies. All of A Carbon Fee will not damage the that is far more costly than any carbon fee. economy. It will, in fact, trigger innovation Forward-­‐thinking executives will work to and investment in new technologies: energy avoid an increasingly constrained, volatile efficiency, production, distribution and economy. A revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee is the storage. Already in Ohio, almost 20,000 best solution, placing the true cost of carbon workers are employed in the solar, wind, and on those who decide to use it, and providing energy efficiency industries. Ohio has the risk-­‐avoidance and new growth opportunities capacity to accelerate green energy for those who decide not to. employment. Doug Bell One argument against this that you may Courier Contributor hear is that “cheap” coal, oil, and natural gas WEB LINK http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-­‐edition/2013/04/19/carbon-­‐fee-­‐would-­‐be-­‐good-­‐
for-­‐business.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 19 BusinessCourier Bell OPED Carbon fee would be good for business FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS FEATURE, APRIL 18, 2013 The Earth’s Evolving Climate — A Time to adapt By Joanna Pollock Hurricane Sandy hit the coast in 2012, becoming the second costliest storm in U.S. history. While off the coast of Northeastern U.S. it also became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, just one of the many super storms thought to be growing in frequency due to climate change. Posted by Terrah Baker The Climate is changing regardless of politics, the economy or public opinion. The earth does not care if we do not have a worldview big enough to contain her changing climate. But the truth is that not only do scientists have consensus, but most Americans believe the earth’s climate is changing and that it is caused by human behavior. Most faith groups now accept anthropogenic climate change and are taking an active role in mitigating its effects on future generations as a moral imperative. Baptists, who make up 17% of Americans, are not all in agreement, but The Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change of 2008 states “We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues…some of us have required considerable convincing…now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.” Last March a Yale/George Mason University poll revealed little difference between Independents and Democrats when asked if the issue of climate change influenced their vote for President (58 percent and 63 percent respectively) and 43 percent of Republicans. Sixty percent of polled voters of the presidential election indicated they believed climate change made hurricane Sandy worse. Many more Americans are starting to realize that what climate scientists have been saying for decades is true because they recognize the increased frequency of extreme weather events. Donna Davis, a Ph.D. candidate in the UofA Environmental Dynamics program studying the implications of climate change on the Marshallese population and Northwest Arkansas puts it this way, “The climate doesn’t care whether you think global warming is caused by human activity or not. The fact of the matter is, temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate and there are people on the globe feeling real consequences now. Some debate the science, but many around the world are actively working to increase their resilience and adaptive capacities. For some countries like the low-­‐
lying Marshall Islands, global warming is increasing devastating flooding, coastal erosion and threats to the fresh water supplies. These pressures may make migration off the islands the final adaptation as sea-­‐level rise threatens to inundate their entire country.” Davis believes that if the Marshallese people do become climate refugees, they will likely come to Northwest Arkansas since the second largest population of Marshallese people already live here. Tri Cycle Farms’ (Across from Trinity United Methodist Church on Sycamore and Garland) mission is to strengthen community through soil and boost food security by empowering people to grow their own food. They use the method of scouting for produce varieties that can withstand extreme weather, which is an extremely important part of climate change adaptation. What are we not only realizing, but smelling, hearing, feeling and tasting? According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records, the global average temperature has increased over 1.4°F in just the last century and the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record with two of the years in that decade being the hottest years on record. We are all feeling it. Any of us that have lived longer than 15 years can anecdotally remember seasons being different right here in Arkansas. I can remember listening to my grandmother and great-­‐aunt talk about “how much the weather and seasons have changed in Arkansas since when they was little.” They smelled the flowers blooming earlier, heard intense rains more often and felt the scorching rays of the longer, hotter summer, all while out doing their traditional yard work and gardening. They also spoke of ice skating on ponds in the winter and said there hasn’t been ice that thick in years. If we pay attention to the outdoor world, then you feel the change of weather trends and seasons and as our food supply begins to reflect a necessary adaptation, you may even begin to taste it. Are we adapted for a climate that has not only changed, but does so rapidly? The Author of Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming, Anthony D. Barnosky says “The problem is that global warming is essentially off the scale of normal in two ways: the rate at which this climate change is taking place and how different the ‘new’ climate is compared to what came before.” A quick search in the online resource, Public Library of Science, shows that climate adaptation and resilience strategies are already well underway by people, highly informed organizations and governments throughout the world. The EPA defines adaptation as “efforts by society or ecosystems to prepare for or adjust to future climate change,” and lists key areas of adaptation as agriculture and food supply, coasts, ecosystems, energy, human health and water resources. People everywhere are planning their resilience strategies and assisting others with doing the same. In a paper presented eleven years ago at a meeting on adaptation to climate change and sustainable development, Dr. R.J.T. Klein, a leading expert on climate change adaptation and professor at the Stockholm Environment Institute, defined resilience as “The amount of disturbance a system can absorb and still remain within the same state and the degree to which the system is capable of self-­‐organization.” How resilient will our Arkansas communities be? A report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture released in February details the strain climate change is on agriculture and stresses the need for adaptation due to extreme precipitation events, heavier, longer rains and flooding rivers, as well as, crop pests and disease that thrive in the warmer temperatures. A report from the University of Maryland’s Center for Integrative Environmental Research projects that the Southeastern states will likely be some of the hardest hit by climate change. In a recent article in the online journal Arkansas Business, titled Arkansas Farmers Face New Changes with Climate Change, a spokesman for the Arkansas Farm Bureau [Steve Eddington] admits that Arkansas farmers are concerned. “It’s certainly a topic that people are talking about. And I’m using ‘climate change’ as broadly as can be, relative to the drought. Or the heavy, heavy rains we had a year and a half ago, too,” says Eddington. According to research from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Arkansas farmers are not unlike other Southern farmers because while they acknowledge seeing evidence of climate change in their daily lives as agriculturalists, they are still reluctant to acknowledge that it is caused by humans. They do agree however that the biggest threat to Arkansas agriculture and food production is reliable access to sufficient water and most of us are aware of the drought. George Carlin when he said “The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself; it will cleanse itself, because that’s what it does. It’s a self-­‐
correcting system.” As human communities we have to mitigate climate change and adapt to the change that is already in store. To reduce our own suffering and that of our neighbors, resilience planning seems the wise and compassionate choice. The city of Fayetteville has made strides in these areas by partnering with the Illinois River Watershed on rain garden projects, continuing to expand trails and currently has plans to advance walkable community design to West Fayetteville and near all primary schools and is developing an urban agricultural ordinance to support the expansion of local food production. The Director of Sustainability & Strategic Planning for the city of Fayetteville, Peter Nierengarten, shared some insight for this story, “Community resiliency strategies such as local food production, transportation options, rainwater harvesting, emergency preparedness, etc. are highly effective at reducing our exposure to the vulnerabilities created by the dual threats of climate change and peak oil.” Celebrate the Earth! As we celebrate our planet this month, I am strangely reminded of the words of WEB LINK http://www.freeweekly.com/2013/04/18/the-­‐earths-­‐evolving-­‐climate-­‐a-­‐time-­‐to-­‐adapt/ CCL FILENAME 2013 04 18 FreeWeekly Pollock EDITORIAL The Earth’s Evolving Climate – A Time to Adapt DODGEVILLE, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 18, 2013 Pipeline dangers Recently an Exxon Mobil tar sands pipeline burst near Mayflower, Arkansas, spilling thousands of barrels of crude oil into a subdivision and forcing the evacuation of 22 homes. This shows the danger of pipelines and our reliance on fossil fuels. But by putting a price on carbon instead of approving more pipelines, like the Keystone LX, we can lead our country forward to a clean energy future instead of locking us into the dirty sources of the past. Working with Congress to enact fee and dividend legislation can make a critical difference. By raising the cost of carbon based fuels at the well-­‐head, the earned revenue could be returned to all households. Alternative energy would become more competitive and there would be less need for carbon based fuels. This translates into more jobs, less extreme weather, and a healthier future. Marie Baker Dodgeville WEB LINK http://thedodgevillechronicle.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=3723 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 18 DodgevilleChronicle Baker LTE Pipeline dangers http://thedodgevillechronicle.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=3723 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 18, 2013 Environment 'conspiracy' In reading Stan McQueen's letter, my attention was drawn to the last sentence "speculating about the motives" of environmental advocates who would destroy the economy in the name of preventing climate change ("Climate change facts," April 15). In reading Stan McQueen's letter, my attention was drawn to the last sentence "speculating about the motives" of environmental advocates who would destroy the economy in the name of preventing climate change ("Climate change facts," April 15). This feels like conspiracy theory. The environmentally conscious people with whom I've interacted have no vested interest in hurting the economy. They, like all, are negatively impacted when the economy is down. But maybe the economy isn't the only consideration. What I find admirable about the environmental cause is a willingness to look beyond the immediate comforts of me and mine and to consider the world we're leaving for those who will follow. I guess if there is an environmental conspiracy, it would be people lending their voices to the animal and plant kingdoms and to generations unborn who really have no voice but whose well-­‐being so heavily depends upon our practices, policies and decisions. Matthew Weed Holladay, Utah WEB LINK http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765627276/Environment-­‐conspiracy.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 18 DeseretNews Weed LTE Environment conspiracy CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 18, 2013 We want the power without the inconvenience Re “Will tar sands oil flow through New Hampshire?” (Sunday Monitor editorial, April 14): What do tar sands pipelines, hydroelectric behaviors we have come to expect are normal transmission lines and windmills have in or are our rights. We still get on a plane for a common? We insist it is our right to have as weekend in Texas, a business trip to Europe much electricity, heating oil, gasoline for our or a conference in Costa Rica. gas guzzlers and air travel as we want, on What will it take for us to stop focusing on demand, at cheap prices, but we don’t want the view from our backyards and realize we the inconveniences, unsightliness, or dangers need to define a new “normal” in order to associated with any of them. preserve human life on this planet? Even those of us who accept the scientific Rabbi Judy Weiss conclusions that fossil-­‐fuel use is causing Brookline, Mass climate change and that apocalyptic (The writer is a member of Citizens destruction is likely before the end of this Climate Lobby.) century, even we still can’t change the WEB LINK http://www.concordmonitor.com/opinion/5768909-­‐95/letter-­‐we-­‐want-­‐the-­‐power-­‐without-­‐
the-­‐inconvenience CCL FILENAME 2013 04 18 ConcordMonitor Weiss LTE We want the power without the inconvenience SYRACUSE, NEW YORK OPED, APRIL 17, 2013 Can we afford to wait for consensus? ‘Practical’ approach might be useless if time’s running out Democracy can move at a glacial pace, and sometimes that serves us well. Except that glaciers no longer move at a glacial pace. If you care about what’s happening to the global climate, and you look at what’s happening in Washington, or what’s not happening in Washington, you have good reason to worry. The 24th Congressional District of Rep. Dan Maffei (D-­‐DeWitt), is the only one in upstate New York to have a local Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) chapter. He says that he intends to meet with representatives of the group, which will be part of the panel discussion after the screening of Chasing Ice at the Palace Theatre on Earth Day, April 22. Yvonne Tasker-­‐Rothenberg, a retired librarian from Jamesville, heads the local chapter. CCL is a nationwide group formed in 2007 to “create the political will for a stable climate.” Our chances for climate stability would be improved, in their view, if they can achieve their legislative goal for the moment: to pass a carbon tax. According to their plan, a properly implemented carbon tax is one that will charge producers of energy sources that emit carbon and return the tax revenue to the people in the form of a check, which they can then use to purchase more carbon-­‐neutral, less climate-­‐damaging forms of energy. Tasker-­‐Rothen berg thinks this is a market-­‐
based, revenue neutral plan that should draw support from both sides of the aisle. CCL has drawn praise from, among others, leading climate change scientist James Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “If you want to join the fight to save the planet,” says Hansen on the group’s website, “there is no more effective step you could take than becoming an active member of this group.” The CCL proposal is more aggressive than earlier Democratic-­‐sponsored initiatives referred to as “cap-­‐and-­‐trade” policies. The citizen’s lobby proposes this more muscular measure in response to climate science of the past five years, essentially because they believe that capand-­‐trade will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough. There are some flaws in the theory—not as large as the flaws in our carbon-­‐based energy production system, but enough to make some economists question this means to the end. Ursula Rozum is co-­‐chair of the youth wing of the Green Party USA. She came in third in a three-­‐way race for Congress last year behind Maffei and climate-­‐change skeptic Ann Marie Buerkle. While Rozum and the Greens would prefer public ownership of energy production, she likes a carbon tax because it would reward producers of renewable energy and give some market stability to greener power sources. She’s not sold on the CCL idea of a rebate, suggesting that the revenues might be better plowed back directly into renewable energy research and development. “We still have a large percentage of members of Congress who deny that climate change is a reality,” [she says]. I reached Maffei on the House of Representatives floor and asked about his stance on the CCL proposal. He says that he is happy to speak with Tasker-­‐Rothenberg and her group but notes with some frustration that the carbon tax proposal is not on the congressional agenda for this session. It’s not anywhere near the agenda. It’s not even a whisper in Washington. “In the 111th Congress,” he says, “we learned that we did not even have a consensus on an energy bill. There is a real urgency on climate change, but the idea of a carbon tax is a non-­‐starter.” Without consensus in the Republican-­‐run House, he chooses to focus on efforts such as supporting greener technology for the military and continuing tax incentives for solar and wind energy. “There needs to be a discussion of all sorts of ideas, but in the real world we need to focus on the possible,” he says. During his two-­‐year hiatus from Capitol Hill, Maffei taught courses at the State University College of Environmental Science and Forestry about the politics of environmental issues. Now his “real world” means going to work every day in a body in which the power is in the hands of those who would fiddle while the glaciers tumble. “We still have a large percentage of members of Congress who deny that climate change is a reality,” Maffei says. “There is a broadening consensus in the Democratic Party that climate change is real and is human-­‐made. But the deniers are more vocal, more energized, and there are economic reasons why some people want to deny climate change.” And yet even the CCL’s proposal is hardly radical: It aims to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million. Lately, climate scientists have come round to the idea that if we can’t get back down to 350 ppm from the current level of 392 ppm, the planet as we have come to know, love and defile it is in for some radical change. As for Maffei, he insists that he needs to practice the art of the possible. “Republicans think it is overblown,” he says. “I disagree; but they have the votes. Which is where the operative phrase “political will” comes in. And the question: Do we have time? Ed Griffin-­Nolan Syracuse WEB LINK http://www.syracusenewtimes.com/newyork/article-­‐6652-­‐can-­‐we-­‐afford-­‐to-­‐wai.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 17 SyracuseNewTimes Griffin-­‐Nolan OPED Can we afford to wait for consensus HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA COLUMN, APRIL 17, 2013 It’s a good divestment Mohawk and McMaster students want their schools’ money out of the fossil-­‐fuel business. Students today have been cast as a generation defined by apathy. Pundits and politicians routinely make sweeping statements about us being unconcerned with politics. But despite these proclamations, a new movement is growing on campuses across Canada. In Hamilton, Fossil Free McMaster and Divest Mohawk are examples of groups proving the stereotype wrong. Both groups — made up of students, alumni, faculty and community members — have witnessed the effects of climate change first-­‐hand: the increase in intensity and frequency of storms, more homes flooded and more damage to local agriculture. That is why they want to see their schools’ substantial endowment funds divest from the fossil fuel industry, an industry that is fuelling the climate crisis. They believe it is unconscionable to finance education with investments that will condemn the planet to climate disaster. They are asking for an immediate freeze of any new investment in fossil-­‐fuel companies. They want divestment of existing funds to occur within five years. The students are urging Mohawk College president Rob MacIsaac and McMaster University president Patrick Deane to take the next steps and commit their schools to the divestment strategy. McMaster and Mohawk signed the Hamilton Climate Change Charter in 2011, agreeing to initiate the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and to take on responsibility and act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both campuses have a sustainability office and promote their leadership in sustainability. McMaster has a Centre for Climate Change and Mohawk has a new degree in renewable energy engineering. We are simply asking that they align their endowment with their values that they demonstrate through their teaching, research, advertising and operations. A report by Blue/Green Alliance found that investing in renewables creates more jobs than fossil fuel investments. McMaster and Mohawk could be leaders on climate change mitigation and, if they reinvested in solutions, could help build more opportunities for current and prospective students. Climate change has long been an issue close to the hearts of students. But under the Harper government, students have felt particularly disenfranchised. They watched the dismantling of federal environmental laws facilitate the expansion of one of the dirtiest energy sources on the planet, the Alberta oilsands. Furthermore, students witness the government subsidize these same that Canada has ignored “systemic risk” in the companies at roughly $1.4 billion a year. oil and gas sector, and that university The divestment movement has caught the endowments and government pension funds imagination of students. All of a sudden, should begin a “managed retreat.” The report students are empowered. They can see a path cautions about the coming “carbon bubble,” to change that will achieve more than and estimates at least 78 per cent of Canada’s recycling and compost bins. There is hope proven reserves are “unburnable carbon that that student power can make a real cannot safely be combusted without leading difference. to catastrophic climate change.” With more than $400 billion in Fossil fuels are no longer going to be endowments in North America, divestment competitive with other forms of energy and has the potential to do similar things for that will result in substantial financial losses. climate change as it did for the movement to The divestment movement arose this fall end South African Apartheid. in the United States and spread like a There are now 302 divestment campaigns drought-­‐induced-­‐wildfire. All thanks go to in the United States; The Nation news journal 350.org’s Bill McKibben’s Do the Math Tour is calling this the fastest growing student where he clarified that most of the identified movement in decades. The movement in reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the Canada is quickly catching up. ground if the planet is to avoid catastrophic On March 27, 15 campuses took part in the climate change. Thus far five campuses, one national day of student divestment action, NGO, one church, and one municipality have called Fossil Fools Day. Campaigns at McGill, divested. Trent, UBC, UVic and UNB, for example, are Fossil Free McMaster and Divest Mohawk highlighting the tomfoolery and injustice of are each hoping their school will be the first investing in companies responsible for Canadian campus to do the same. destroying land, polluting the air and water, Elysia Petrone is the Eastern Canada and violating the rights of people around the organizer for Fossil Free Canada and is world. These companies plan on burning over based in Hamilton. If you’re interested five times the amount of carbon our planetary in joining either campaign, send an budget can handle. email to [email protected] A recent report published by the Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives contends WEB LINK http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/919403-­‐-­‐it-­‐s-­‐a-­‐good-­‐divestment CCL FILENAME 2013 04 17 HamiltonSpectator Petrone COLUMN It’s a good divestment CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 17, 2013 Opportunity for Ayotte Re: “Changing climate is baking moose to death” (Sunday Monitor Viewpoints, April 14) and “Will tar sands oil flow through New Hampshire?” (Sunday Monitor editorial, April 14): I hope Sen. Kelly Ayotte has a chance to Barbara Boxer, which would encourage read these articles. Ayotte has the unique private-­‐sector investment in clean power by placing a gradually rising fee on carbon opportunity to cement herself in history as a emissions? By joining with Sanders and Boxer courageous politician who bucked the trend of her party by declaring that Congress must to fight for the passage of this legislation, address climate change in the name of Ayotte would earn the permanent admiration of those on both sides of the aisle who protecting life. Instead of dirty tar sands oil, why not recognize that climate change is a problem that impacts all of us. embrace renewable energy by passing the Climate Protection Act of 2013, recently Devone R. Tucker introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Brockton, Mass. WEB LINK http://www.concordmonitor.com/opinion/5749274-­‐95/letter-­‐opportunity-­‐for-­‐ayotte CCL FILENAME 2013 04 17 ConcordMonitor Tucker LTE Opportunity for Ayotte ASHLAND, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 17, 2013 Take action on Earth Day In February, "Forward on Climate," a nation that had taken lives and imposed national day of climate action, was celebrated climate-­‐related devastation. Imposing costs locally by "The Rogue Thing: Bringing Climate exceeding $200 billion, the devastation Concerns Home." resulted in over 50 percent of our counties Sponsored by SOCAN (the Southern being declared disaster areas. Oregon Climate Action Network), the The time to take individual and collective Medford event saw hundreds of local bold action to address climate change is now. residents produce over 1,300 house-­‐shaped During the Earth Day Celebration, SOCAN tiles depicting what is important to them as (http://soclimate.org) will be challenging residents of the valley or what is threatened visitors to Pledge to take Bold Action. Please by climate change. These became scales of a join us and rise to the challenge by making huge salmon in the Porters Restaurant your pledge. parking lot. This earned the area a national Additionally, plans are underway for the reputation for climate change creativity. This Salmon created for "It's A Rogue Thing" to go was our regional first step. to Salem for Oregon Climate Action Day on The theme of Rogue Valley's Earth Day May 22. Watch for details Celebration (11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, April at http://oregoncan.info/. 20, at ScienceWorks) is "Taking the Next Kathy Conway, co-­facilitator, Southern Step." When Hurricane Sandy barreled Oregon Climate Action Network ashore, it followed two years of droughts, Jacksonville, Oregon wildfires and severe weather across the WEB LINK http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130417/OPINION04/304170302 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 17 AshlandDailyTidings Conway LTE Take action on Earth Day MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN OPED, APRIL 15, 2013 Fix the foundation I appreciated the "Our View" from April 7 fossil fuels is wrecking that. The cracks are on the 20th anniversary of the there to see, and they are getting wider at a Cryptosporidium outbreak ("A sober frightening pace. We've learned that the reminder of why clean water is so important," schemes of a few subprime mortgage wizards Crossroads). I like the Editorial Board's are enough to throw the world economy into homey analogy: "as any homeowner knows, a five-­‐year slump. Climate change is real. It doing it now is better than doing it later. threatens to take the whole house down. Putting off repairs only means that the There is still time to fix this foundation or problem gets worse, and will cost more to fix at least stabilize it. It will take big changes, down the road." such as adjusting the price of fossil fuels to I'm all for protecting and restoring our reflect their terrible cost. I hope we can pull it part of this house. But it's the foundation I off. really worry about. Ten thousand years of Michael Arney human civilization have gone hand in hand Wauwatosa with a stable climate. Now our burning of WEB LINK http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters16-­‐1d9ic2h-­‐203108621.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 15 MilwJS Arney LTE Fix the foundation NORMAN, OKLAHOMA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 14, 2013 Germany leads U.S. on climate change odyssey By Karin Schutjer Our country inspired the world with its civil rights transformation, sent a man to the moon, and led the personal computer revolution; we can and must do better on climate change. The scientific consensus is clear: global warming is happening and is human-­‐caused. A recent review of nearly 14,000 peer-­‐reviewed articles on the subject found that only 24 (0.17 percent) rejected climate change. Yet in part because of disinformation campaigns funded by special interests, many people simply reject the science. Thus a crisis that threatens humanity as a whole has become here a partisan issue. A January CNN poll indicated that only 28 percent of Republicans acknowledge human-­‐caused climate change. Compare that with the rest of the world: a 2012 Ipsos poll of 13,000 people in 13 countries (Eastern and Western, wealthy and poor) found that 77 percent overall recognize climate change as a proven scientific fact. For the sake of perspective, it’s worth a look at Germany, which has been governed by conservative-­‐led coalitions since 2005. A country once stereotyped as inflexible and pessimistic is now leading the globe in the transition to renewable energies while maintaining a healthy economy and strong support across the political spectrum. Here’s what that commitment looks like: in 1990 renewable sources accounted for 3 percent of Germany’s total electricity consumption; by 2012 renewable sources supplied 22 percent. The pledge for 2020 is 35 percent, for 2050 80 percent, which, in combination with other efforts, will result in a 95 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The Germans, undeterred by their overcast skies, lead the world in solar capacity, largely through private investments. Meanwhile, conservation and the demand for new energy are driving extraordinary innovation. Germany stands to reap tremendous economic benefits, while our country is getting left behind. Of course Germany has its own distinct circumstances shaping its response. Like other European countries, it has had to face its finite land mass and natural resources and tends to plan carefully for the future. Germany also has a traditional respect for science. Its politicians debate policy, not the legitimacy of scientific findings. But perhaps most importantly, the catastrophe of the Nazi period left Germans with a strong sense of social and moral urgency and a conviction that it is not acceptable to close one’s eyes to unfolding disaster. Germans who lived through that time were later asked by their children and grandchildren, “What did you do about it?”; Germans today expect to hear the same question from future generations about climate change. What can we do? A carbon fee and dividend is a market-­‐based approach endorsed by both environmental groups and conservative economists like Greg Mankiw, adviser to George W. Bush, and Arthur Laffer, former adviser to President Reagan. It would incentivize our transition to renewables by putting a steadily rising fee on carbon at the first point of sale and returning the revenue to households. A tariff on goods from countries without such a system would ensure competitiveness. Ask Congressman Cole or Senators Coburn and Inhofe to support such legislation. But above all let them know that the time for denial is over: we are all in this together and we as a nation can do better. Karin Schutjer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby — Norman. She studies and teaches German language and culture. WEB LINK http://normantranscript.com/columns/x210917539/Germany-­‐leads-­‐U-­‐S-­‐on-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
odyssey CCL FILENAME 2013 04 14 NormanTranscript Schutjer OPED German leads US on climate change odyssey MEDFORD, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 14, 2013 Water shortage looms Understanding snowpack accumulation in Oregon is important to assessing the potential water availability for consumption and irrigation during the coming months. This is because historically, snowpack is our reservoir — releasing water as it melts through the summer and fall. We have already seen a consistent drop in snowpack. At Crater Lake, for example, data collected since the 1930s exhibit a steady decade-­‐by-­‐decade decline. Projections for the future are for this pattern to continue. Indeed, by late century, the region may experience only 10 percent of its historical snowpack accumulation. Looking at current patterns of snowpack indicate whether the historical trend is continuing, and what this summer is likely to bring. Oregon's SNOTEL snowpack updates can be found at the National Resources Conservation Service website. The latest report, released April 6, reveals an interesting pattern: Through the 12 inland basins listed, all but two are at or below 75 percent of long-­‐
term median trends for snow water equivalent. The combined Rogue/Umpqua value is 67 percent. Only the Willamette and Lower Deschutes are in the 90 percent or greater range. Combining this information with the dropping Columbia Plateau aquifer suggests that water shortages induced by climate change are not far away. Alan Journet, co-­facilitator, Southern Oregon Climate Action Network Jacksonville, Oregon WEB LINK http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130414/OPINION/304140362 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 14 MailTribune Journet LTE Water shortage looms MEDFORD, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 14, 2013 Keystone is too costly In his analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline (April 6), retiring director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. James Hansen, is exactly correct. The costs associated with the pipeline are immense and will be suffered by humanity throughout the planet; the benefits, meanwhile, are only monetary and will be enjoyed by just a few oil corporation executives. We know that preserving a livable planet for future generations requires leaving four-­‐
fifths of the known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Deciding which to leave should involve assessing energy returned on energy invested. By this measure, tar sands oil is the worst source of fossil fuel available, since it barely breaks even. Additionally, tar sands oil extraction and processing are the most carbon-­‐emitting methods known and are done by open pit mining, which lays barren vast areas of boreal coniferous forest — an ecosystem which traps and sequesters carbon. If a bank guard's defense was: "If I hadn't allowed the robbers in, they would have found a way in anyway," he would be laughed out of court. It is equally unacceptable with Keystone. President Obama and Representative Walden might better support the carbon fee-­‐and-­‐rebate proposal. Kenneth Deveney Ashland WEB LINK http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130414/OPINION/304140363 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 14 MailTribune Deveney LTE Keystone is too costly LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 14, 2013 Environmental racism well-­known Climate change is a racial issue. When food nuclear industries do. Why? Wealthy becomes scarce as a result of drought, prices interests have privileged access to our law will rise even higher than they are already. and policy makers. Who will be able to afford it? Wealthy people Between 2008-­‐2012, seven environmental who are predominantly white people. groups collectively spent $1 million opposing U.S. environmental racism is well known. the XL pipeline, while, in the same period, 31 In Port Arthur, Texas, a refinery town with corporations and trade organizations spent compromised air and water quality, 71 $59.8 million. percent of the population is black and Level the playing field. Demand a revenue-­‐
Hispanic. Median household income is 39 neutral fee on carbon from Congress before it percent higher in a nearby community that is is too late. 91 percent white. Chrysa Wikstrom Alternative energies do not receive the Santa Fe substantial subsidies that the fossil fuel and WEB LINK http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2013/04/14/north/letters-­‐112.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 14 AlbuquerqueJournal Wikstrom LTE Environmental racism well-­‐known ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 14, 2013 We’re ruining our climate for kids Watching snowflakes fall (one recent) He then asked what could be done “to morning, my son asked “Does climate change make things better.” Thankfully that list is affect how much snow we get?” long. We can all make simple, effective When I told him New Mexico might be changes in our lives. The big picture is even essentially uninhabitable within the next 50 more important: ensuring the Keystone XL years, thanks to climate change, he replied, pipeline is rejected, working for clean energy, “It’s not fair that kids are going to suffer for and more. what adults do.” Sad that my 10-­‐year-­‐old has For my sons, and all our children, let’s do to be concerned about the devastating the work to make this work. possibilities of global warming, I could only Tara Bloyd agree. Cerrillos WEB LINK http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2013/04/14/north/letters-­‐112.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 14 AlbuquerqueJournal Bloyd LTE We-­‐re ruining our climate for kids SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 13, 2013 Pollution tax is sensible NEWPORT BEACH The carbon tax is quickly becoming an idea whose time has come. More and more policy experts, including those in conservative circles, see it as an effective vehicle for correcting the distortion in the marketplace that makes fossil fuels our dominant energy source. Many economists say the free market is a just arbiter in deciding which goods and services are beneficial to society. The system breaks down, however, when the price of something does not reflect its true cost to society. Such is the case with fossil fuels, as their use carries tremendous costs in health, security, environmental damage and destructive weather made worse by global warming. Correcting this distortion in the marketplace (economists refer to this as "Pigovian" taxation, a special tax for pollution) would allow clean energy and efficiency to flourish and reduce our use of carbon-­‐based fuels. Across the political spectrum, this concept is gaining wide acceptance. Jerry Taylor from the Cato Institute says, "... imposing a tax on emissions gets the energy price 'right' and neatly remedies the market failure; no direct regulation or subsidy to this or that industry are necessary." Keith Crane from the RAND Corp. says, "A conservative, cost-­‐efficient response to climate change involves sending price signals to people and businesses now so that they take steps to reduce emissions. A carbon tax is the simplest way to send these signals." The good news is that we can correct this market failure without damaging our economy. How? Give the revenue from the carbon tax to the American people. Mark Tabbert, founding member, Citizens Climate Lobby, O.C. WEB LINK http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/crime-­‐503876-­‐done-­‐%20city.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 13 OrangeCountyRegister Tabbert LTE Pollution tax is sensible EUREKA SPRINGS, ARKANSAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 12, 2013 11 reasons global warming no joke I just wanted to respond to Gary (no last name given) and his anonymous meteorologist friend's frustration about global warming "hype". Some of what you may think is "hype" may in fact be genuine concern for our future, our children, our grandchildren, and this beautiful Earth that God gave us. Below are the findings from the latest National Climate Assessment. These are the findings (not hype or theory) of 240 climate scientists and represent independently confirmed peer reviewed science. I encourage Gary and his friend to share their views with those scientists through the provided commenting process rather than trying to confuse the good people of Eureka Springs. These are the findings from the latest National Climate Assessment: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Global climate is changing, and this is apparent across the U.S. in a wide range of observations. The climate change of the past 50 years is due primarily to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities. Human-­induced climate change is projected to continue and accelerate significantly if emissions of heat-­
trapping gases continue to increase. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly challenging across the nation throughout this century and beyond. 5.
Climate change threatens human health and well-­being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water, and threats to mental health. 6. Infrastructure across the U.S. is being adversely affected by phenomena associated with climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours, and extreme heat. 7. Reliability of water supplies is being reduced by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods in many regions, particularly the Southwest, the Great Plains, the Southeast, and the islands of the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the state of Hawai`i. 8. Adverse impacts to crops and livestock over the next 100 years are expected. Over the next 25 years or so, the agriculture sector is projected to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours. U.S. food security and farm incomes will also depend on how agricultural systems adapt to climate changes in other regions of the world. 9. Natural ecosystems are being directly affected by climate change, including changes in biodiversity and location of species. As a result, the capacity of ecosystems to moderate the consequences of disturbances such as droughts, floods, and severe storms is being diminished. 10. Life in the oceans is changing as ocean waters become warmer and more acidic. 11. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce emissions) is increasing, but progress with implementation is limited. Jerry Landrum WEB LINK http://www.lovelycitizen.com/story/1958898.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 12 LovelyCountyCitizen Landrum OPED 11 reasons global warming no joke CONNECTICUT ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 11, 2013 Kudos to Whitehouse for taking stand on carbon The April 12 deadline for comments on U.S. Sen. Whitehouse’s draft on carbon pricing is fast approaching. This is an important first step in placing a direct fee on carbon pollution and returning the revenue back to consumers so we can transition to a clean energy economy while helping to ensure a stable climate for our children and grandchildren. Sen. Whitehouse is asking the public to comment on four items: the appropriate price per ton for carbon polluters to pay; what the annual increase should be; the best ways to return the revenue to the public; and how the pricing mechanism would interact with existing state programs. A high price on carbon promises climate solutions, and I am grateful that strong leadership is coming from our state. The least we can do as citizens is return the favor and offer our feedback at his website. Please visit Whitehouse.senate.gov and look for the March 12 press release titled “Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer and Schatz release carbon price discussion draft.” As the press release states, the proposed legislation would establish the polluter pays principle for dangerous carbon pollution, requiring large emitters to pay for the pollution they emit. Mary Jane Sorrentino Green Lane Jamestown WEB LINK http://www.jamestownpress.com/news/2013-­‐04-­‐
11/Letters_to_the_Editor/Kudos_to_Whitehouse_for_taking_stand_on_carbon.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 11 JamestownPress Sorrentino LTE Kudos to Whitehouse for taking stand on carbon HEATHSVILLE, VIRGINIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 10, 2013 Climate Change is a Critical Issue -­ A Silver Bullet! The time for denying “Climate Change” is tariff/pollution fine/tax” – whatever you over. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, want to call it, on first sale of fossil fuel based sea-­‐level is rising, glaciers are melting and on the tons of CO2 generated by that fuel severe weather events are happening more could do the job. Start at $15 per ton but frequently. make the “tax” neutral to families by Enormous infrastructure costs and providing everybody a rebate in much the quality-­‐of-­‐life costs are in earth’s future. same way as “Oil Revenue sharing” works in Children, grandchildren and all denizens of Alaska. Increase the economic “thrust” by the earth are dependent on us for action. increasing tax per ton annually until CO2 We are bombarded with ways to reduce reduction progress is achieved. our “Carbon Footprints.” Purchase an Electric The Energy bill proposed by Senator Vehicle -­‐ use ethanol. Abandon incandescents Barbara Boxer does most of this. She has – use LED’s. Plant trees, paint roofs white, provided the silver bullet. Our Federal better insulate homes, increase thermostat Government just needs to aim and fire. range, buy high SEER appliances, use KISS – Keep It Simple Stupid. This simple “alternative” fuel energy sources, and on and and easily understood program, with National on. media encouragement, Government support, We really DON’T WANT pesky and Quarterly check$ to the US Public, will Government intrusion on sub-­‐factor issues. In galvanize national action behind planet fact, we don’t want our Congressmen and stewardship and – also -­‐ kick-­‐start growth. women spending their hours on micro-­‐
Additionally, the strong message to our management of things like use of fellow citizens of the globe is that that CO2 incandescent light bulbs. A simple common climate change is a critically important denominator approach that goes to the “root “today” problem that can be addressed -­‐ cause” influences all sub-­‐factors. The primary today. root cause is excess CO2 in the environment, Again, our children are depending on us. leading to greenhouse planet heating. Lee Allain A Federal Government “resource depletion Northern Neck, Virginia WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 04 10 NorthumberlandEcho Allain LTE Climate change is a critical issue NOTE: This article was also published in the Rappahannock Record, Kilmarnock, Virginia NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 10, 2013 Show support for price on carbon emissions The April 12th deadline for comments on Senator Whitehouse’s Carbon Pricing Discussion Draft is fast approaching. This is an important first step in placing a direct fee on carbon pollution and returning the revenue back to consumers so we can transition to a clean energy economy while helping to ensure a stable climate for our children and grandchildren. Senator Whitehouse is asking the public to comment on four items: the appropriate price per ton for carbon polluters to pay, what the annual increase should be, the best ways to return the revenue to the public, and how the pricing mechanism would interact with existing state programs. A high price on carbon promises climate solutions, and I am grateful that strong leadership is coming from our state. The least we can do as citizens is return the favor and offer our feedback at his website. Please visit www.whitehouse.senate.gov and look for the March 12 press release titled Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz Release Carbon Price Discussion Draft. As the press release states, the proposed legislation would establish the polluter pays principle for dangerous carbon pollution, requiring large emitters to pay for the pollution they emit. Mary Jane Sorrentino Jamestown, Rhode Island WEB LINK http://www.newportdailynews.com/ee/newportdailynews/default.php?pSetup=newportdailynews_arc
hive CCL FILENAME 2013 04 10 NewportDailyNews Sorrentino LTE Show support for price on carbon emissions http://www.newportdailynews.com/ee/newportdailynews/default.php?pSetup=newportdailynews_arc
hive SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH EDITORIAL, APRIL 7, 2013 GOP warming: Fewer Republicans in denial When Utah’s newest congressman opined be done about it. For without that consensus, last month that he isn’t convinced that human still more time will be wasted before the activity is responsible for climate change, or United States acts decisively to limit carbon that climate change is asmuch of a threat as emissions, time that scientists say is in scientists are warning it is, he took a position dangerously short supply if the worst that a new poll suggests increasing numbers consequences of climate change are to be of his own Republican Party are abandoning. avoided. So, too, are more and more independents who Ed Maibach, of the George Mason Center lean toward the GOP. for Climate Change Communication, quoted The results of the poll by George Mason by Mother Jones, said the significance of the and Y ale universities released last week poll is that “on issues related to energy and show that more than three quarters of the climate change, the Republican leadership 726 Republicans and independents polled may be out of step with a significant portion favor using renewable energy much or of their base and other relevant voters.” If somewhat more than it is today . Only slightly that evaluation is accurate, climate change fewer indicated that moving toward denial as an effective political tool may be alternative energies should begin headed in the same direction as the GOP’s immediately. crumbling opposition to gay marriage. Without reading too much into the results As with gender equality , though, of a single poll, it is possible to interpret them Republican voters will have to persuade their as an encouraging sign that the political party and its leaders that the views espoused polarization that has grown up around the by Utah’s Rep. Chris Stewart and like-­‐minded science of climate change and development of members of Congress simply won’t wash. And renewable forms of energy finally is that day may be coming sooner than later. beginning to crack. With 2012 the warmest year on record, Given the gravity of the threat posed by and with climate-­‐related disasters such as the greenhouse-­‐gas emissions that are droughts and superstorms on the rise, the causing the planet to warm, it would be reality of climate change is becoming harder welcome news indeed if the poll accurately for the Stewarts within the GOP to spout reflects the beginnings of a bipartisan climate claptrap without sounding like consensus on climate change and what should heedless dupes of the extractive industries. WEB LINK fewer+Republicans+in+denial&aqs=chrome.0.57.5641j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-­‐
8#q=GOP+warming-­‐
fewer+Republicans+in+denial&hl=en&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=CtBlUffFHdOP0QGsuIG4
DA&ved=0CDMQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44990110,d.dmQ&fp=b91d0b828803cbd1&biw=1366
&bih=659 CCL FILENAME 2013 04 07 SaltLakeTribune Ed Board EDITORIAL GOP warming – fewer Republicans in denial LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2013 Untitled letter Re "A pipeline to disaster," Opinion, April 4 [Climate scientist James] Hansen deserves a Nobel Prize, though I'm sure he would rather have responsible adults in Congress when it comes to climate policy. We are playing with fire when we ignore the plentiful warning signs given by nature. We irresponsibly create disastrous conditions not just for ourselves, but for many generations. We must respond to prevent the planet from reaching tipping points, when any human efforts will be pointless and nature will say, "I'll take it from here." And now we may grant the dirtiest oil on the planet permission to borrow America so a few profit. Again, we play with fire. Jan Freed Los Angeles WEB LINK http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-­‐le-­‐0407-­‐sunday-­‐keystone-­‐pipeline-­‐
20130407,0,6056795.story CCL FILENAME 2013 04 07 LATimes Freed LTE Untitled letter (re pipeline to disaster) MADISON, WISCONSIN OPED, APRIL 7, 2013
Could Democrats and Republicans really agree on climate change legislation? By Jessica VanEgeren and Madeleine Para
Jessica VanEgeren joined The Capital Times in 2008, primarily covering Capitol politics and law enforcement. She previously covered business in the Madison area and state government and politics in South Carolina. Madeleine Para’s days as a four-­‐year-­‐old kindergarten teacher in the Madison School District are coming to an end. It’s a job she loves; she adores her students. Yet it’s this desire to make things better for the next generation that played a part in her decision to leave teaching and turn what had become a full-­‐time volunteer job over the past two years into a full-­‐time gig. A self-­‐described activist for most of her life, Para has worked with the National Organization for Women in Wisconsin and was arrested outside the White House in the summer of 2011 for peacefully protesting the possible extension of the Keystone XL Madeleine Para of Citizens Climate Lobby, on Thursday, April 4, 2013. Photo by Mike DeVries -­ The Capital Times Pipeline across the United States from Canada. It was a peaceful act of defiance organized by another group she works with concerned about climate change, 350.org. The name is based on research conducted by NASA climate scientist James Hansen that determined that 350 parts per million is the safe level of carbon dioxide that should be allowed in the atmosphere. “We’re now kissing 400,” Para says. Come June 17, Para, 56, will become the program director for Citizen Climate Lobby. The position will provide her with her most direct role yet in attempting to drop the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back down to 350. Founded in 2007 by Marshall Saunders, a real estate broker in California, Citizens Climate Lobby is one of the fastest-­‐growing, citizen-­‐driven lobbying groups around. It now has some 85 chapters in the United States and five in Canada. Its mission is simply stated but far from simple: Begin to stop climate change by convincing Congress to pass national carbon fee and dividend legislation. “With a problem as big as climate change, if our government doesn’t move on it, all the other important things that are going on will not be sufficient,” Para says. “Things won’t really shift as much and as fast as they need to unless the United States takes action. That’s why Congress needs to act.” What follows is an edited transcript of a discussion with Para about the task before her. Capital Times: Explain carbon fee and dividend legislation. Madeleine Para: The idea is based on simple economics. What you want less of, you make more expensive. It worked with cigarettes. And it works already with fossil fuels. Every time the cost of gas goes up, more people want to drive fuel-­‐efficient cars or drive less. CT: You say it’s a simpler solution than many others out there. Why? MP: A carbon fee and dividend essentially levels the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable fuels by no longer permitting Congress to hand out tax breaks or other incentives to fossil fuel companies. CT: The tax is then collected by the government and redistributed to the taxpayers, correct? MP: Yes, you can think of it as a “green” check. You, me and Rockefeller … we all get the same amount. CT: Will the government need to know how we spend the money? MP: Nope. If you don’t have the money for a new car — which many people don’t — use the money for a more fuel-­‐efficient car or weatherizing your house. CT: What do you do when you encounter lawmakers in Congress who don’t believe in climate change? MP: There certainly are those who still don’t acknowledge it. But what we’ve decided is that we are going to work with whoever is there. Whether they believe climate change is real or not, we are going to approach them respectively and persistently and build relationships with them. CT: What approaches have you used? MP: We look at who lawmakers listen to. They listen to their constituents and they do look at the opinion pages of newspapers to gauge public opinion. Our members in the US and Canada write lots of letters to the editor. CT: Let’s talk about Wisconsin’s congressional team. One is Sen. Ron Johnson. As far as I know, he doesn’t believe global warming is occurring. Is that correct? MP: I think he’s still publicly in that boat. CT: Does CCL talk to him regularly? MP: We have not yet met face-­‐to-­‐face with him. I’m hoping that will happen this summer. We have met with and maintain contact with his energy aide. CT: That’s a positive. MP: Yes. People assume the door won’t be open but we haven’t found that to be our experience. We found if we ask nicely, people will meet with us. CT: How do you interact with U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who have similar views as Citizens Climate Lobby? MP: The challenge for Democrats comes from the fact Congress is so gridlocked. They can’t pass legislation without Republicans. When we meet with them we ask, “Who do you work with across the aisle?” Then we work to build those bridges to put forth proposals Democrats and Republicans can support. CT: In the few years you’ve been with the organization, have you seen a shift in Congress? MP: As far as the belief that climate change is not happening and that it’s not an issue? I think a lot of them, including Johnson, are starting to soften on that. There was a Stanford University poll last CT: I would imagine some conservatives week that indicated 82 percent of Americans would say this is the government again telling believe climate change is happening now. us what to do. Politicians will respond to what their MP: There are always some who will find constituents think. something they don’t like. But there are many CT: So this may be the next wave of who recognize that of the solutions available change. It seems some topics — marriage for dealing with climate change, this is the equality, immigration — are starting to be one most consistent with conservative values. seen by the majority in a different light. For example, EPA regulations are a totally MP: I think we are turning a corner on the awful idea from a conservative’s point of subject of climate change. We are moving out view. Regulations interfere with businesses. of the denial phase and are moving into the Incentivizing renewable energy forms “what are we going to do” phase. through a price adjustment is a conservative CT: You’ve said carbon fee and dividend principle. It’s a conservative principle that legislation is completely revenue neutral. you pay your way. Why is that a conservative idea that you think CT: What concerns do you hear most from Republicans could support? the average citizen? MP: It doesn’t grow the size of MP: People are worried that it’s hopeless. government. The government doesn’t decide If they acknowledge the problem, then they’re who to give money to. It lets the free market scared there’s either nothing we can do about decide by leveling the playing field between it or we won’t be able to get our government fossil fuels and renewable fuels. It’s important to act. for Democrats to not just play to their base CT: Do you feel like this is very David-­‐
but to back ideas that Republicans, at least versus-­‐Goliath? moderates, can support. MP: Oh, for sure. But David won. WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/could-­‐democrats-­‐and-­‐
republicans-­‐really-­‐agree-­‐on-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐legislation/article_127f2984-­‐9e2f-­‐11e2-­‐90c9-­‐
0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz2RxjIGRSA CCL FILENAME 2013 04 07 CapTimes Vangeren & Para OPED Could Democrats and Republicans really agree YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 3, 2013 Climate change – Free-­market failure Thanks to The York Dispatch for the March 29 article "National Survey: Storms, oceans, beaches." Global warming is driving some major change in sea levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, had projected in their 2001 report an annual sea level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection, according to an article in Scientific American. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion (warming ocean temperatures causing water to expand in volume) and land-­‐
based ice (glaciers and ice sheets) melting into the oceans. Studies show that sea level rise is accelerating, unless you live in North Carolina, where climate change deniers in state government insanely passed a law last year forbidding the use of current science in planning for sea level rise, instead only allowing the use of historical data. North Carolina scientists predict a rise of 39 inches, but planners are only allowed to plan for 8 inches (as measured in the last 100 years). Good luck to homeowners on North Carolina's coastline. According to NOAA, in 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Sea level rise is making planners redraw flood plain maps, affecting many more people. The cause of this major sea level rise is the burning of fossil fuels, releasing CO2, which is warming our planet and is another example of the hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. It's a failure of the free market to not factor the costs of rising sea levels into the price of fossil fuels, and keeping up the charade that there is no problem is putting Americans and all of life on the planet at considerable risk. A steadily rising tax on carbon-­‐based fuels with 100 percent of the revenue returned to every household is a simple and fair solution that Congress can implement immediately to address global warming's devastating impacts on our coastlines by beginning to wean us from fossil fuels. Jon Clark Mid-­Atlantic regional coordinator Citizens Climate Lobby WEB LINK http://www.yorkdispatch.com/letters/ci_22936971/letter-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐free-­‐market-­‐failure CCL FILENAME 2013 04 03 YorkDispatch Clark LTE Climate change – Free-­‐market failure SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 3, 2013 Global warming reality In this Thursday, April 29, 2010 file photo, a pair of coal trains idle on the tracks near Dry Fork Station, a coal-­fired power plant being built by the Basin Electric Power Cooperative near Gillette, Wyo. I share Tom Harris' sadness over the death of coal miner Elam Jones, but I am dismayed that he used Jones' death to advance his propaganda about the cause of climate change ("Coal is crucial," March 28). He asserted that carbon dioxide emissions from coal are not a major contributor to dangerous climate change. This statement could not be further from the truth. Former college president and National Science Board member James Powell recently completed a study of peer-­‐reviewed publications on global warming. He studied articles published from Jan. 1991 to Nov. 2012 and found that of 13,950 articles, only 24 rejected human-­‐caused global warming. The major human contribution to global warming has been burning fossil fuels, especially coal. Fortunately the majority of the American public is no longer buying the propaganda from the International Climate Coalition and similar groups. The latest poll from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications revealed that 45 percent of Americans are concerned or alarmed about human-­‐caused climate change, and another 25 percent recognized that climate change is occurring. Before readers accept an assertion about climate change, they would do well to consider the source. David Folland, M.D. Sandy WEB LINK http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765625951/Global-­‐warming-­‐reality.html CCL FILENAME 2013 04 03 DeseretNews Folland LTE Global warming reality YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 1, 2013 Sea levels rising Thanks to the York Daily Record for the article "Poll: Rising sea levels worry 4 in 5" (March 29). Global warming is driving some major change in sea levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, had projected in their 2001 report an annual sea level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. "But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection," according to an article in Scientific American. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion (warming ocean temperatures causing water to expand in volume) and land-­‐based ice (glaciers and ice sheets) melting into the oceans. Studies show that sea level rise is accelerating, unless you live in North Carolina where climate change deniers in state government insanely passed a law last year forbidding the use of current science in planning for sea level rise, instead only allowing the use of historical data. North Carolina scientists predict a rise of 39 inches, but planners are only allowed to plan for 8 inches (as measured in the last 100 years). Good luck to homeowners on North Carolina's coastline. According to NOAA, in 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. Sea level rise is making planners redraw flood plain maps, affecting many more people. The cause of this major sea level rise is the burning of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 which is warming our planet and is another example of the hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. It's a failure of the free market to not factor the costs of rising sea levels into the price of fossil fuels, and keeping up the charade that there is no problem is putting Americans and all of life on the planet at considerable risk. A steadily rising tax on carbon-­‐based fuels with 100 percent of the revenue returned to every household is a simple and fair solution which Congress can implement immediately to address global warming's devastating impacts on our coastlines by beginning to wean us from fossil fuels. Jon Clark Conewago Township WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22916027/sea-­‐levels-­‐rising CCL FILENAME 2013 04 01 YorkDailyRecord Clark LTE Sea levels rising RADIO INTERVIEW, MARCH 27, 2013 Wisdom of a Climate Hero – Elli Sparks ENVISION THIS...Basing your life, your work, your health, and your diet on the food wisdom of our
ancestors
O
ur guest, Elli Sparks, embodies this vision Her children's stories, available from her Her biodynamic permaculture farm, where in manuscript form, are “Papa, Tell Me a she has been increasing the carbon sucking Story” about the time Earth very nearly lost capacity of her pastures with mob grazing, is her people and “If You Ask Your Congressman called Sacred Foods Farm.The name comes to Be a Climate Hero.” from the research done by Dr. Weston A. In an article for the Richmond Times-­‐
Price and the book he wrote that collected Dispatch, Sparks writes: together in one place the food wisdom of our "Perhaps more than most issues, climate ancestors.It is this wisdom that has helped change is a spiritual challenge with a Elli heal from rheumatoid arthritis and political solution that industry must depression. implement. We will need elected leaders She was the co-­‐founding member of the and captains of industry to ground Richmond Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. themselves spiritually. They will need to act She is building relationships with members of from a place of love, not fear. Free will, I Congress, their aides, and the local believe, only works when it comes from a newspaper’s editorial board for the purpose place of love. I'm guessing God would say of ensuring her own children’s health, that, too. security, and wellbeing. WEB LINK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/envision-­‐this/2013/03/28/wisdom-­‐of-­‐a-­‐climate-­‐hero-­‐elli-­‐
sparks CCL FILENAME 2013 03 28 BlogTalkRadio Sparks INTERVIEW Envision this – wisdom of a climate hero RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 5, 2013 Power and the Poor Rick Martinez should be ashamed of his Feb. 27 column “Offshore drilling? Do it for the poor.” He is either truly misinformed about current climate science, global energy markets, renewable energy production and potential in N.C., and the serious risks associated with fracking and offshore drilling or he chose to manipulate these issues in order to promote N.C. fossil fuel extraction under the guise of helping the least of our state’s citizenry. His circular logic concludes that even though we know fossil fuels contribute to global warming, they are our best hope for jobs and getting the poor to school, so that they too can learn that fossil fuels are contributing to global warming and, maybe, they can discover a solution. There are policy initiatives that can mitigate the effects of climate change while simultaneously protecting the economy. Putting a steadily rising tax on carbon coupled with a steadily rising dividend to all consumers would send strong signals to the marketplace that would allow us to transition to a clean-­‐
energy economy while shielding the public from increased energy costs. How we address the poor and the environment does have moral implications. We don’t have to sacrifice either. Holmes Graybeal Pittsboro WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/05/2727631/holmes-­‐graybeal-­‐power-­‐and-­‐
the.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 05 RaleighNewsObserver Graybeal LTE Power and the Poor LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2013 KXL: A Pipeline to Oblivion It's great news that the National Research Council is reporting that the U.S. can cut its greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption by 80 percent by 2050 in light-­‐
duty cars and trucks ("Report predicts drop in fossil fuel use," March 24). The article also points out the U.S. reduction in oil consumption from a peak of 20.8 million barrels a day in Nov. 2005 to 18.9 million barrels a day due to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and increased fuel economy in vehicles. Another recent article in the YDR pointed out our high gasoline prices despite a boom in oil drilling, busting the myth that more drilling equals lower gas prices. These facts lead me to one question, why do we "need" the proposed Keystone pipeline to carry the dirtiest oil on earth from Canada to the Gulf Coast? My conclusion: we don't. A recent study by Oil Change International showed that 60 percent of the gasoline currently refined at Gulf Coast refineries is already exported, coupled with our already reduced demand screams that this oil is not meant for the U.S. but for foreign markets where the demand is greater, fetching higher prices. This, along with a warning from one of our top climate scientists, James Hansen of NASA, that by fully developing the Alberta tar sands oil it would mean "game over" for our climate. Hansen states: "Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history." Not good news for a climate that is dramatically changing from the amount of greenhouse gases we've already emitted. Why would we risk more oil spills on American soil and increased global warming, putting future generations and civilization itself at risk to move Canadian oil to overseas markets, especially when there are clean energy alternatives that can replace the need for fossil fuels altogether? I can find no sane reason. Mike Omlor Washington Township WEB LINK http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/mar/06/keystone-­‐doom-­‐20130306/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 26 ArkansasOnline Omlor LTE Keystone XL – a pipeline to oblivion OPINION, MARCH 25, 2013 Carbon tax? No thanks, says Senate By Jon Healey such as the one favored by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would divvy up the money among consumers and businesses in the form of rebates, effectively shifting dollars from the most intensive carbon emitters to the least. The big tent notwithstanding, the Senate rejected the amendment handily, 58 to 41. All 45 of the chamber's Republicans voted against it, as did 13 Democrats from energy-­‐
producing or swing states. Citing new Pope Francis' comments about the need to be better "protectors of creation," Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island leads a group of reporters through the said it bw
as arrogance to fbor elieve hallway after voting on a series of amendments to the SWhitehouse enate's proposed udget resolution humanity c
ould r
epeal t
he l
aws o
f n
ature, fiscal 2014 Friday evening. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / March 22, 2013) physics and chemistry. "We can ignore In case there was any doubt about the obvious facts, we can ignore the essentially odds of Congress enacting a carbon tax, a unanimous science, we can ignore our Senate vote Saturday morning showed that generals and admirals, we can ignore the they are long indeed. insurance industry’s warnings, but we ignore Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a liberal Rhode carbon pollution at our peril, and we have Island Democrat, offered an amendment to subsidized it long enough," he told his the proposed fiscal 2014 budget resolution colleagues. calling for "establishment of a fee on carbon Sen. Roy Blunt (R-­‐Mo.) responded by pollution." The amendment didn't suggest focusing on how a carbon tax would affect who'd pay the fee or how large it would be; it low-­‐income Americans. "I would just say, required only that the fee not increase the when the poor family cannot pay their utility deficit and that all the revenue raised be bill -­‐-­‐ the family who is the last family to get "returned to the American people in the form the new refrigerator, the family who is the of federal deficit reduction, reduced federal last family to get the insulated windows, the tax rates, cost savings or other direct family who is the last family to insulate their benefits." ceiling -­‐-­‐ I guess we tell them there are going That's such a wide set of options, it left to be some federal tax rates that will be added room for the Senate to consider all of the for a family who cannot pay their utility bill." carbon-­‐tax proposals that have been floated. Amendments on a budget resolution are Some would use the revenue to narrow the largely symbolic, given that such resolutions federal budget gap; others would lower don't have the force of law. And because corporate and personal tax rates. Still others, Whitehouse's proposal wouldn't have required Congress to follow through with an actual tax on carbon emissions, it was more like a straw poll than a statement of intent. Nevertheless, the vote illustrated how tough it would be to get a real "fee on carbon pollution" through the Senate, let alone the tax-­‐allergic House. With at least eight Democrats representing states that are big producers of coal, oil or gas, any carbon-­‐tax proposal will need at least five Republican votes to pass. Although there are a few GOP members of the Senate who've indicated a willingness to support higher tax revenue as part of a deal to solve Washington's long-­‐term budget problems, they want that revenue to be raised through a pro-­‐growth overhaul of the tax code that winnows tax breaks and reduces rates. The most viable option may be a fee that doesn't generate any revenue at all for the federal government, but rather returns the money collected right back to the public in the form of rebates. But as Blunt's argument notes, the fee wouldn't be politically viable unless it was designed to hold low-­‐income families harmless. That could be a tricky exercise, considering that those in rural or intemperate climates often have considerably higher bills for gasoline, fuel oil and power than the average American. Supporters of a carbon tax can take all these signs with a grain of salt. The debate over each of the many budget amendments was cursory at best, and serious proposals such as Whitehouse's were intermingled with frivolous and politically motivated ones, such as one by Sen. David Vitter (R-­‐La.) to bar poor people from receiving subsidies for phone service if they choose a mobile phone instead of a land line.* Besides, a carbon tax in isolation isn't going to be as appealing as one that's part of a larger deal to address climate change and/or the government's fiscal problems. Yet Whitehouse himself declared that his amendment was a "test" of the Senate's willingness to impose some form of carbon tax. And on that score, the vote is a clear signal that supporters of a tax have a lot of work to do on their sales pitch. *That particular program has been abused in the past by some phone companies, which made the subsidies (which are funded by fees on other phone users) available to people who weren't eligible for them. But if the government considers phone service vital enough to merit subsidies for low-­‐income families, it shouldn't matter to lawmakers what flavor of service someone chooses, as long as the amount of the subsidy doesn't change. WEB LINK http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-­‐1/article/p2p-­‐75027882/ 2013 03 25 LATimes Healey OPINION Carbon tax no thanks says Senate LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 24, 2013 Untitled letter Re: Which green path: Will California seek growth or heed zealots? (Editorial, March 17) Does the economy trump all? If we could Second, labeling concerned individuals as grow tobacco in California and sell it to school “anti-­‐fossil fuel zealots” only divides us. It children, would we do it in the name of the does nothing to solve the problem. There are economy? The UT set up a false narrative by few opportunities as great as investing in a ignoring the dire threat of human caused green economy. By placing a gradually climate change. increasing fee on the dirty fuels we can create First, the UT compares apples to oranges market certainty, a long missing price signal by selecting facts about gas extraction, then in the energy industry. This will unleash drawing comparisons to shale oil. Missing in investments in clean energy and create jobs. the conversation is the fact that shale oil is By returning all revenues to households one of the dirtiest contributors to climate everyone wins. change. The UT’s pro-­‐shale stance advances only if you disregard the climate. Natural gas Amy Hoyt Bennett is not clean, but if we can get it safely, it may Encinitas be a bridge fuel as we move to renewables. WEB LINK http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/21/fracking-­‐natural-­‐gas-­‐california-­‐economy-­‐green/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 24 UTSanDiego Bennett LTE Untitled letter re ‘Which green path’ TRENTON, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 23, 2013
Take action against global warming
I certainly agree that we need to get off dirty energy, and soon (op-­‐ed, “The sooner we kick the dirty energy habit, the better,” March 12). The climate isn’t getting any better, and the longer we delay the solution, the more expensive it will be. The most direct and effective way to get going is to urge Congress to pass the carbon fee-­‐and-­‐dividend bill that is now in the Senate (Climate Protection Act, S332). That would put a real price on CO₂ emissions and shift the economy toward renewable energy. There is a group that is taking direct political action by lobbying members of Congress. It’s the Citizens Climate Lobby. Anyone can join the local chapter by visiting the website at citizensclimatelobby.org. for information. John Schivell Princeton The writer is a member of the Princeton chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_650.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 23 TrentonTimes Schivell LTE Take action against global warming YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 22, 2013
Climate change will cost us all It was interesting to read the report showing the insurance industry unprepared for climate change-­‐related disasters (March 10). Interesting but not surprising. The fossil fuels industry has spent a lot of money on a disinformation campaign to cast doubt about climate change and delay action to address it, and it has paid off big for them -­‐-­‐ so far. Not so for the insurance companies, as seen with the $11 billion plus extreme-­‐weather events last year, mega disaster Sandy, and the ongoing Midwest drought. Sandy and the drought alone are costing the economy (and insurers) in the tens of billions of dollars. Who pays for this? We do, in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher food prices, and the loss of the projects the money could have paid for. The latest science from the IPCC, the leading authority on climate science, shows that projections from years ago are proving too conservative. Co2 emissions, Arctic sea ice decline, temperature rise, and sea level rise -­‐-­‐ all are outpacing projections. It's time to end this culture of climate change denial and start listening to what climate scientists are saying. Our leaders have a responsibility to gather the best science available in order to make good decisions. The nation depends on this. Civilization itself depends on this. Porter Hedge Spring Garden WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22849574/climate-­‐change-­‐will-­‐cost-­‐us-­‐all CCL FILENAME 2013 03 22 YorkDailyRecord Hedge LTE Climate change will cost us all ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 22, 2013 Who are winners and losers? In the debate over science and climate, we atmosphere. He spent the remainder of his can at least congratulate ourselves that we no life under house arrest. This is a scientist who longer believe that the Earth is flat and that to this day is looked upon as the original by we don’t bother to discuss this point. It is, such as Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. however, worth remembering how hotly and Ridiculously, in 1992, some time after later painfully this has been discussed. The run of wizards of motion and propulsion had landed ink was unfathomable, and the carbon a man on the moon, the Catholic doctors dioxide exhaled just may have contributed to conceded the error of their denials. the trajectory of the Keeling scale. So, in our generation, we might ask Copernicus was reluctant to his death to ourselves where lie the vested interests in the take on the vested interests of his day with science of climate? Are there orthodoxies? his calculation of a heliocentric solar system. Where is the power? Who has the money? Galileo, however, took on the powers as a Will there be winners? Are we the losers? result of direct observation through a lens Judith S. Rose that Jupiter’s moons did spin through its Alexandria WEB LINK http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/103023/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 22 EchoPress Rose LTE Who are winners and losers TRENTON, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 21, 2013
Join a group that lobbies for the planet Supporting Ellie Whitney’s recent op-­‐ed “The sooner we kick the dirty energy habit, the better” (March 12) that we should and can switch away from fossil fuels, which are causing global warming, there was a report in The New York Times that announced that over the last few months, Spain generated more electric power from wind turbines than from all other sources. Surely, if Spain can do it, we can do it. We just need the public to speak up. I urge everyone to write to our representatives and join organizations that support this transformation. Perhaps be a member of the Sierra Club, 350.org, or the local Citizens Climate Lobby (Princeton’s chapter is nearby). Huck Fairman, Princeton The writer is a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_647.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 21 TrentonTimes Fairman LTE Join a group that lobbies for the planet LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON, DC ARTICLE AND VIDEO, MARCH 20, 2013
Is a Carbon Tax Market-­Friendly? By Tracy Oppenheimer The extent of environmental damage from man-­‐made climate change is a debate in and of itself, but President Obama made it clear during his 2013 State of the Union address: there will be some form of government action during his second term. One of the most hotly debated energy proposals in Washington right now is a carbon tax. "A carbon tax would do exactly what you would want it to do, which is to incorporate the damages to the environment into the prices we pay for all manner of goods and services," says Adele Morris of the Brookings Institution. Morris studies different carbon tax models and says this tax would be better than existing regulations under the Clean Air Act. Reason magazine's Ronald Bailey agrees that a carefully constructed carbon tax could be beneficial if carbon emissions are affecting private property. "In an ideal world, if carbon emissions were directly harming someone’s property, the government should step in and make sure they get compensated," Bailey says, "the problem is, the transaction cost of getting it through the court system is just too high. So maybe what you need is a carbon tax as a substitute for that process." Bailey argues that a clean, simple carbon tax as a substitute for another tax might work. The government could also send a check to each household for its share of the tax. However, he fears that the government might end up using the tax to decrease the deficit instead, and that this tax could also negatively affect economic growth. "It will certainly slow things down in the sense that makes all fuels more expensive," says Bailey. Food processing plants would be exceptionally hard hit by the tax because they require vast amounts of energy to produce their products. Nick Kastle, director of marketing for the Morning Star tomato processing company, says that this tax would just make everything more expensive for their customers. "There is no secret bag of money that businesses have stashed away in a drawer. It’s business, you’re creating value, you’re deriving value from your resources," Kastle says, "the more you can limit the use of resources and create value is margin, that margin is the incentive that keeps businesses running effectively and doing everything they can." So do the pros of a carbon tax outweigh the cons? Or vice versa? Follow the web link below to find the original article from which this was reproduced. A video, which is about 7 minutes long, is embedded in it, written and produced by Tracy Oppenheimer with additional camera by Zach Weissmueller, Josh Swain and Todd Kranin. Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live. WEB LINK http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/20/should-­‐libertarians-­‐consider-­‐a-­‐carbon-­‐ta CCL FILENAME 2013 03 20 Reason-­‐Com Oppenheimer VIDEO Is a carbon tax market-­‐friendly COLTS NECK, FREEHOLD, ENGLISHTOWN, MANALAPAN & MARLBORO, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 20, 2013 Sandy response requires bold action We have all been impacted by superstorm Sandy, which profoundly changed the lives of so many residents on the Jersey Shore. We were also impacted by the supercell storm that hit Freehold on July 28, 2012, damaging many houses. There is much discussion about how to respond to these events in the short term, but what about our long-­‐term response? President Barack Obama touched on this in his State of the Union Address: “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods — all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.” We need a policy that will speed the transition away from fossil fuels — the main contributors to climate change — and toward the clean energy sources of the future. New Jersey is already a leader in solar energy, and a policy that places a steadily rising fee on carbon based emissions can facilitate this transition, letting the market, — not government — decide what the clean energy alternatives of the future will be. The fee should be revenue-­‐neutral, rebating all of the revenue back to consumers, to speed the transition to clean energy without inflicting economic pain on American households. Conservative economists, including Arthur Laffer and Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to President George W. Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, support a revenue-­‐
neutral carbon fee: “Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits. That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources.” Such a policy has been successfully implemented in British Columbia since 2008 without hurting their economy. Their GDP during this time has fared better than the rest of Canada, which does not have the policy, and better than the United States. Most recently, China has also announced a carbon fee. “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” said Obama. If the president doesn’t get a legislative solution from Congress, he will turn to regulation. Instead of more regulation, we should ask Congressmen Chris Smith and Rush Holt and Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez to respond to the climate challenge by supporting a market-­‐based solution using a revenue neutral carbon fee. By transitioning to clean energy and becoming more energy efficient, we will create jobs, help the economy and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The future of the Jersey Shore and the future of our children are at stake. Klaus Rittenbach Freehold Township WEB LINK http://nt.gmnews.com/news/2013-­‐03-­‐
20/Letters/Sandy_response_requires_bold_action.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 20 NewsTranscript Rittenbach LTE Sandy response requires bold action LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 19, 2013 Carbon tax bills await Congress' OK
Thomas Friedman (Opinion, March 17)
correctly advocates for a carbon tax as a
win-win solution for climate change and the
economy. But he meekly accedes that such a
tax will not happen because of big money
political influence and boomer selfindulgence.
Friedman got the last point wrong. The
fossil fuel industry uses the atmosphere as
their sewer to the detriment of our health
and our planet. Because of the climate
catastrophe, more citizens than ever before
are raising their voices against this outrage.
Boomers and Republicans have kids, too.
It has been said "whether you think you can
or you can't, you're right." This isn't the time
for naysaying punditry. It's time for action.
There are two bills in Congress that call for
a carbon tax, by Sens. Barbara Boxer and
Bernie Sanders and Rep. Harry Waxman.
We can pass a carbon tax. We must.
John Fioretta San Jose WEB LINK http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_22820217/march-­‐19-­‐readers-­‐letters CCL FILENAME 2013_03_19 MercuryNews Fioretta LTE Carbon tax bills await Congress LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 19, 2013 Where’s Congress when climate change is seen as military threat? Re “Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry” (Page A7, March 9): If a Navy admiral says our biggest security threat in the Pacific comes from climate change, then that means that members of Congress who stymie serious climate change legislation are akin to seditious subversives collaborating with multinational corporations, banks, and financiers who profit from the development and sale of fossil fuels. When lawmakers feign doubt about climate change by repeating misinformation promulgated by fossil-­‐fuel interests, they are effectively aiding and abetting the enemy. So-­‐called balanced reporting on the subject of climate change allows elected officials, fossil-­‐
fuel lobbyists, and others to continue their con game and fool the public longer. I appreciate that Bryan Bender’s article presented Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III’s information without resorting to phony balancing. Judy Weiss Brookline The writer is a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2013/03/18/where-­‐congress-­‐when-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
seen-­‐military-­‐threat/VG0BBs0MUdzueiGFUsegxK/story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 19 BostonGlobe Weiss LTE Wheres Congress when climate change is seen as military threat NEWS ITEM, FEBRUARY 18, 2013 ‘It's a Rogue Thing’ Giant artwork salmon created in hopes of spreading climate change awareness By Sanne Specht Individual art tiles are arranged into a giant salmon Sunday as part of a rally against climate change at Porter’s Restaurant in Medford. The cardboard pieces make up the image, which is going to be used to promote climate change awareness. More than 150 people attended the rally. More than 150 people gathered in Medford to cheer speakers discussing the changing ecosystem, and calling for community-­‐based and global solutions to environmental threats at the Sunday afternoon rally titled "It's a Rogue Thing." The exhuberant crowd cheered and waved at photographers atop a 65-­‐foot crane who were taking photos of them as they encircled a 120-­‐foot-­‐long colorful salmon created out of 1,200 individual cardboard tiles created by local residents who ranged in age from 2 to 87-­‐years old. The goal of the event was to gather support in protecting the Rogue Valley from the effects of climate change by inspiring creative and collective solutions, said event organizer Hannah Sohl of the Southern Oregon Climate Action Network. "We asked the people making the tiles 'What worries you about climate change?' And 'What do you love most about the Rogue Valley?' " said Sohl. A Rogue Valley native, Sohl said the local event was being held on the same day as the national "Forward On Climate" rally in Washington, D.C., to show solidarity on the environmental messages. The Rogue Valley call to action began at the Medford library and paraded its way through city streets to wind up at the north parking lot at Porters Restaurant. Photos of the Pacific salmon, and the eco-­‐friendly crowd, will be sent to local leaders, state representatives and on to President Barack Obama, she said. "We are asking them to move forward on climate action," Sohl said. Young and old strolled around the collaborative art pieces, and also danced to live music under sunny skies. Medford resident Dierdre Rapp, 36, and her two sons, Gavin, 9, and Kellen, 7, created tiles for the salmon earlier in the day. Both boys said they enjoyed the creative process. Their mother said it was a kid-­‐
friendly way to get her children involved and whether or not they put on a coat, Graham educated on the climate issue. said. The fate of the world's next generations "But the insurance industry has been was a common theme as the speakers took tracking climate change for decades because their turns at the microphone. it has a huge impact on their business," she Jack Griffin, a third-­‐generation member of said, adding the U.S. military, half of the the Confederated Tribe of the Grande Ronde Fortune 500 companies, and even the said a Native American tradition requires Southern Baptists are on board with the adults to take a long view of the world by science. looking out seven generations past one's own Still, many people don't accept or needs. understand temperature's impact on Rep. Peter Buckley, D-­‐Ashland, told the precipitation, wind and the power of storms, crowd it would need to "organize, organize, she added. organize" to get action from legislators. Graham said that the question "Do you Sign up for emails, phone lists and think climate change is real?" actually is a red "pressure your elected officials," Buckley said. herring for "Are you a Democrat or a Stating any event that had a healthy mix of Republican?"But added that the issue crosses adults, kids and dogs already had good party lines. momentum, Buckley challenged those "It's really about the economy, public attending to look in the eyes of any of the health and fairness toward other countries. It children and ask themselves if they were all comes to us through the environment," she willing to walk away from the challenge of said. creating a healthier world. Lesley Adams of the Ashland-­‐based "I am never going to walk away," Buckley Klamath-­‐Siskiyou Wildlands Center said she said. was "nourished" in body and soul by the rally. Tonya Graham of the Ashland-­‐based GEOS But she voiced concerns about the changing Institute said her nonprofit organization and atmosphere, and its effects on the planet and consulting firm uses science to help people its inhabitants. predict, reduce and prepare for climate "We need to take action today," Adams change. Explaining the disastrous effects of said. incremental weather changes to those who Fossil fuel billionaires and their high-­‐
don't believe the climate is changing is priced lobbyists have turned Washington challenging, but necessary, Graham said. politicians into "sock puppets," Adams said. Temperatures are expected to rise in the "They've captured our government and it's Rogue Valley by 1 to 2 degrees by 2040, and time to take it back," Adams said. by 4 degrees by 2080, she said. But it can be Reach reporter Sanne Specht at 541-­‐776-­‐
hard to understand that a few degrees 4497 or email [email protected]. warmer or cooler means anything more than WEB LINK http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130218/NEWS/302180316 CCL FILENAME 2013 03 18 MailTribune Specht NEWS It’s a rogue thing – giant artwork salmon CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN OPINION, MARCH 18, 2013 Carbon fee offers road map to climate safety Our climate is headed down a dangerous road, and the window is closing on our chance to turn back. Research published this month in the respected journal Science confirmed we are rapidly leaving the stable temperature range within which human civilization developed during the past 11,000 years. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing this disruption, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, evidence mounts that if we continue on this path, we will soon find there is no exit. We will be stuck on a road to irreversible warming. Before we miss our last exit, let’s stop for a moment and look at a map that shows where this highway is taking us. Our current route leads to uncertainty, instability and threatens human health. Warmer air holds more water, creating more heavy rainfall events and less light rain. Therefore, a warming world not only has increased flooding from stronger storms but more severe droughts as well. Residents of Gays Mills know all too well the price of flooding, and area farmers are certainly hoping to avoid a repeat of last year’s drought. Meanwhile, heat waves threaten the elderly and ill in our communities. Climate change amplifies a broad range of health threats, including water contamination, asthma and lung diseases, and the spread of infectious diseases such as the West Nile virus. These early signs of climate disruption are already upon us — like a road-­‐
sign saying “danger ahead.” We can continue down this road, or we can exit now to a more prosperous, stable and healthy world. We can make our communities healthier immediately and save money by taking action to prevent climate change. The burning of fossil fuels contribute to four of the five leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and lung diseases, while putting children at risk of asthma and delayed mental development. Actions to avoid climate change will make us healthier now. It’s a win-­‐win opportunity. We can avoid the worst danger and uncertainty of climate change while ending a health scourge that has existed for nearly 200 years, not to mention becoming a world leader in the rapidly growing clean-­‐energy economy. Our exit to a better world is blocked by a simple fact: The market price of fossil fuels do not reflect their true cost, making them appear cheap when they are not. Your electricity bill does not reflect the cost of your asthmatic daughter’s visit to the emergency room. Your price at the pump does not reflect the financial and emotional cost of your father’s heart attack. Researchers estimate that coal plants alone cause more than 13,000 deaths each year in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that each year in the U.S., the burning of fossil fuels causes $120 billion in mostly health-­‐related damages. Fossil fuels only seem cheap because we pay the price through poor health and higher insurance premiums. In effect, fossil fuels are subsidized by our health care system; however, there is a way to fix this market failure. A revenue-­‐neutral fee on carbon would open an exit to safety by making fossil fuels’ market price reflect their true cost to society. Carbon fee and dividend legislation would place a gradually rising fee on each ton of carbon dioxide a fuel will emit. To protect consumers from the temporary rise in energy prices, all revenue would be returned to citizens. A border tax applied to all goods imported from nations without similar climate legislation would protect American manufacturing and jobs while pushing other countries to take action on climate change. The directions are clear, let’s get moving. Contact your lawmakers and urge them to put us on the nearest exit by supporting carbon fee and dividend legislation. Joel Charles is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby-­Wisconsin. WEB LINK http://chippewa.com/news/opinion/columns/charles-­‐carbon-­‐fee-­‐offers-­‐road-­‐map-­‐to-­‐climate-­‐
safety/article_bef70ae0-­‐8ff4-­‐11e2-­‐b89c-­‐001a4bcf887a.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 18 Chippewa-­‐Com Charles OPED Carbon fee offers road map to climate safety LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 17, 2013 Categorizing climate deniers Re "Reform the carbon calculation," Opinion, March 14 Bill McKibben overstates things with his suggestion that white voters are responsible for climate denial on Capitol Hill. It's more accurate to say that ultraconservative voters of all races are responsible for voting climate deniers back into Congress. That said, voters of all races should use their power to urge lawmakers to lead on climate and to enact a consumer-­‐friendly, revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee and dividend program. While I understand McKibben's point about Latino voters being crucial to the climate fight, let's not forget that the climate movement should ultimately be about the content of our atmosphere. D. R. Tucker Brockton, Mass. WEB LINK http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-­‐le-­‐0317-­‐sunday-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
immigration-­‐20130317,0,2087547.story CCL FILENAME 2013 03 17 LATimes Tucker LTE Categorizing climate deniers LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 7, 2013 'Fee and dividend': how to reduce CO2 President Obama's State of the Union Between the record heat and numerous message included a challenge to make the climate-­‐related disasters that unfolded in conversion to clean, renewable energy follow 2012, it's clear that our nation must take the template of the "race for space" from my steps to reduce the greenhouse-­‐gas emissions childhood. that are warming up our planet. In that situation, everyone from our NASA Lacking a legislative solution, the scientists down to the kids on my block, president will turn to regulation. threw their support into the task. We all took Republicans, who abhor regulation, should pride in putting the first man on the moon. answer the climate challenge with the free-­‐
Today, the stakes are even higher: No less market approach of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon than ensuring a viable environment for our tax. I think "fee and dividend" fits. Exxon, nation, for the world, for all species on Earth Shell and BP have expressed support for a and for generations into the future. price on carbon. Some members of Congress might not be What's holding Congress back? Many aware that already a plan is in the formative conservative economists support a revenue-­‐
stages that uses the natural forces of our open neutral carbon tax, including Art Laffer, market economy to achieve this goal. It is not economic adviser to President Reagan, and cap and trade, but "fee and dividend." Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to President How it works is: CO2-­‐creating energy George W. Bush and candidate Mitt Romney. producers are charged a fee for the amount of Stated another way, returning revenue CO2 pollution generated by their processes, from a carbon tax to consumers would speed at the sources of materials withdrawal. This the transition to clean energy without money offsets the cost increases that inflicting economic pain on American companies might pass on to consumers, since households. Border-­‐adjustment tariffs on the collected money fund is distributed across goods from nations that don't price carbon the board, equally to all citizens in the form of would protect American businesses and give a dividend. other countries a strong incentive to follow The goal is to make it more appealing and our lead. cost-­‐effective to research and produce clean, Toveah Mirot renewable energy than the climate-­‐
Lancaster destroying fossil-­‐fuel energy. WEB LINK http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/823328_-­‐Fee-­‐and-­‐dividend-­‐-­‐-­‐how-­‐to-­‐reduce-­‐
CO2.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 17 LancasterOnline Mirot LTE Fee-­‐and-­‐dividend – how to reduce CO2 BEND, OREGON OPED, MARCH 16 2013 Enact a fee on carbon to help slow climate change By Thiel Larson In his opening statement of a Senate hearing, Oregon's Democratic U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden said, “When it comes to natural gas, America is truly the land of opportunity. ... (Natural gas) is an environmental opportunity. Gas is 50 percent cleaner than other fossil fuels and it is a major reason why U.S. CO2 emissions have gone down in recent years." While I respect Wyden's opinion on many issues, his climate math is wrong! Recent research from Steven Hamberg, chief scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, shows that fracking infrastructure is leaking methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more climate-­‐heating than CO2 — at alarming rates, which means electricity generated from fracked gas is potentially even worse for the climate than electricity from dirty coal. Methane leakage rates aside, the carbon emissions from natural gas are still more than enough to push us past dangerous climate tipping points. Fracked gas also crowds renewable energy sources like wind and solar out of the market, making it harder for these climate-­‐saving technologies to compete with dirty fossil fuels. There is another safer and more secure way to gain energy independence and this is a perfect time to do so! That is to pass legislation that puts a price on carbon, provided we take the right approach. If we are looking to create new jobs for Americans, ramping up production of clean energy technology holds great potential. We can realize that potential by making clean energy competitive with fossil fuels. The way to do that is with a gradually increasing fee on carbon. Sens. Bernard Sanders, I-­‐Vt., and Barbara Boxer, D-­‐Calif., have introduced legislation that would do just that. It sets a long-­‐term emissions goal of 80 percent or more by 2050. The legislation would enact a carbon fee of $20 per ton of carbon or methane equivalent, rising at 5.6 percent a year over a 10-­‐year period. Applied upstream (at the coal mine, the oil refinery, the natural gas processing point or at the point of importation), this fee would apply to only 2,869 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, covering about 85 percent of U.S. gas emissions, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this step alone could raise $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years and reduce greenhouse emissions approximately 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. If we take the revenue from that carbon fee and distribute it equally to all Americans, we shield households from the impact of higher energy costs associated with the carbon fee. This is called the Carbon Fee and Dividend. In fact, most families would receive more of a dividend than they would pay for increased energy costs. Using three-­‐fifths of the carbon fee revenue, the Family Clean Energy Rebate Program would work off the model developed by Alaska's oil dividend to provide a monthly rebate to every legal U.S. resident. This is the most progressive way to ensure that if fossil fuel companies jack up prices, consumers can offset cost increases on fuel and electricity. As we transition to clean energy made in America, we'll rely less and less on foreign oil. The less oil we have to import, the more money stays here in the U.S. where it helps our economy and creates American jobs. We must also impose tariffs on goods from nations that do not have similar carbon pricing in order to protect American businesses. The best benefit of a transition to clean energy, of course, is that it will lower the level of carbon dioxide that threatens the stability of our climate. So the time is really right to pass a carbon fee and dividend bill. It will create new jobs, stimulate our economy, give us energy independence and head off climate change. As President Barack Obama said in the State of the Union address, “The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." Thiel Larson lives in Bend. WEB LINK http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130316/NEWS01/303160338/0/SEARCH CCL FILENAME 2013 03 16 BendBulletin Larson OPED Enact a fee on carbon to help slow climate change YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 15, 2013 Climate change deniers are criminal I have a friend who says, "Extinction is bad for business!" The context for this remark is our current planetary plight of accelerating climate disruptions. Like so many other Americans, my friend knows that there is a worldwide scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activities -­‐-­‐ such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels -­‐-­‐ that increase atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. He also knows that the fossil fuel industry has engaged in a massive disinformation and lobbying campaign to discredit climate science, slow progress on international climate treaties, and prevent government regulations reducing carbon emissions. My friend understands that the motives of the fossil fuel business are profit-­‐driven, but short-­‐sighted. Eventually, he reasons, they'll see that their strategy is bad for business. Let's hope they wake up sooner rather than later. I'd like to leave my children and grandchildren with a habitable planet, wouldn't you? Maybe it's time we stood up to those who are funding climate change denial and call them what they are: criminals who are stealing our children's future. Jerry Lee Miller Lancaster WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22798949/climate-­‐change-­‐deniers-­‐are-­‐criminal CCL FILENAME 2013 03 15 YorkDailyRecord Miller LTE Climate change deniers are criminal LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 15, 2013 Bipartisan action urged on dire climate threat On Feb. 17, 40,000 citizens gathered in Washington, D.C., for the biggest climate rally yet, in order to show the president and Congress that we want more than words on the biggest threat facing the nation and the world. We want bipartisan action to address climate change. Yes, we did hear President Obama say in his inaugural address, "If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will." Now we are watching for results, but we cannot afford to be patient when so much is at stake. Climate disruptions of the future will not pick partisan targets, just like Superstorm Sandy didn't care if it destroyed a Republican or a Democrat's home, and just like the Midwestern drought has not been picky, devastating the crops of both liberal and conservative farmers. Likewise, the climate disruptions of the future will bring suffering to families everywhere. They're as likely to afflict the children and grandchildren of tea party Republican house members as those of progressive Democratic senators. Families from Lancaster County to Louisiana and from Alberta to Algeria will feel the pain. In a promising development, some in Congress have awoken to the urgency of this dire climate threat. The Climate Protection Act, Senate Bill 332, places a tax on carbon-­‐based fuels and returns much of the revenue to households. This bill represents movement in the right direction, yet it can be improved. I hope our U.S. senators, Pat Toomey and Bob Casey, will recognize the bipartisan possibilities within this free-­‐market approach, propose needed improvements and sign on as co-­‐sponsors. If the president and Congress don't act soon to address climate change, the 40,000 citizens in D.C. 2 recently will multiply, lobbying and demonstrating until action equal to the size of the threat begins in earnest. Jerry Lee Miller Manheim Township
WEB LINK http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/826389_Bipartisan-­‐action-­‐urged-­‐on-­‐dire-­‐climate-­‐
threat.html#.UUO9zsK214I.twitter CCL FILENAME 2013 03 15 LancasterOnline Miller LTE Bipartisan action urged on dire climate threat SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 14, 2013 Climate action
Kudos to Rep. Lois Capps for pursuing places fees on coal, oil and natural gas at the climate change legislation as described in The first point of sale and then rebates the Tribune (March 8). I am glad that Rep. Capps revenue back to American households. This and the California Coastal revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon gives the Commission recognize the risks to our proceeds back to the consumers. With a beautiful coastline and are taking the predictable price on carbon, investors can potential impacts of climate change seriously. shift away from fossil fuels and toward clean The focus of this legislation is to put into energy like wind and solar. This supports the place preparedness plans for the damage free market, rather than looking to big caused by global warming. While I recognize government to reduce greenhouse emissions. the need for damage control, I am also very Thank you to those legislators who are interested in measures that reduce the working on a variety of solutions to solve this greenhouse gases that cause climate change. very complex issue. The Climate Protection Act proposed by Nancy Mauter Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer Los Osos WEB LINK http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/03/14/2429163/climate-­‐
action.html#storylink=misearch CCL FILENAME 2013 03 14 TheTribune Mauter LTE Climate action LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA NEWS ITEM, MARCH 14, 2013 Biologist offers warning about global warming Climate change already hurting wildlife, he tells Lancaster audience By Ad Crable Staff Writer All those smallmouth bass dying in the Susquehanna River? Ed Perry thinks global warming is at least partially to blame. "Climate change is the final straw that is decimating this fishery," he said Wednesday night in a talk at Community Mennonite Church of Lancaster. The plight of the Susquehanna's once world-­‐class fishery was but one of the examples the former federal aquatic biologist gave in making the case that the outset of climate change already is having major consequences on fish and wildlife. The state Department of Environmental Protection recently refused to declare the lower Susquehanna impaired as requested by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and conservation groups. The devastating die-­‐offs of young bass as well as the appearance of intersex fish and ugly lesions can't be attributed to any specific type of pollution, DEP said. But though various pollution stresses are undoubtedly at play in the river, Perry thinks increased water temperatures also are to blame. That might explain why diseased bass are now showing up in Pine Creek, a northcentral stream with high water quality, said Perry, whose talk here was co-­‐sponsored by the newly formed Lancaster Citizens Climate Lobby and the HIVE of Planet-­‐Loving Activity. Perry said he gave up his annual floating and camping trip down the Susquehanna after 2005 when he encountered hundreds of dead fingerling bass above Harrisburg floating downstream in water that he measured at 91 degrees. Perry spent 30 years in Pennsylvania with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He came out of retirement and now travels the state as an advocate for the National Wildlife Federation's global warming campaign. Climate change, he told a group of about 30 people, is the defining issue of his lifetime. Even though man-­‐made climate change, so far, has "only" raised the global temperature by 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, it's already having profound impacts on wildlife, he said. "There are no deniers in the natural of species go extinct around the world in the world," he said. next 80 to 90 years, Perry said. Already, he said, robins are migrating "There's no shuttle service to get off this farther north. Butterflies are setting off on planet. We need to get off of fossil fuels. Coal their own long-­‐distance migration 24 days is killing our country. It's killing the planet. earlier. Tree swallows are laying eggs nine We need to move fast." days earlier. Perry sees significant reliance on solar and So what? There could be disastrous wind power as a solution. It would involve consequences if food sources aren't ready sacrifice and be expensive, he acknowledges. when migrants arrive early. But the alternative is a certain uptick in In northern Minnesota over the last 25 droughts and storms and catastrophes years, numbers of moose have plummeted around the globe as rising sea levels drive from 8,840 to 2,769. This coincides with less-­‐
hundreds of millions from their homes in severe winters and ticks surviving. Ticks in coastal areas. such numbers can drain the blood of moose. There will be, he projected, mass In the West and Pacific Northwest, warmer migrations and wars. temperatures have doubled the rate that the He urged the gathering to pressure their mountain pine beetle reaches adulthood, legislators to take climate change seriously much to the detriment of forests of evergreen and support the transition to cleaner energy. trees that are being killed. "Changing your light bulbs is not enough," If we don't soon make substantial he said. reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide Perry remains hopeful it is not too late to being pumped into the atmosphere, the turn the tide, saying, "I think technology is world's scientists expect to see large numbers going to bail us out of some of this."
WEB LINK http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/826247_Biologist-­‐offers-­‐warning-­‐about-­‐global-­‐
warming.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 14 IntelligencerJ Crable NEWS ITEM Biologist offers warning about global warming NORTH BAY, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 14, 2013 Fee-­and-­Dividend The level of contaminants released into The fee-­‐and-­‐dividend proposes that the the atmosphere from the burning of fossil revenue from the fee-­‐on-­‐carbon be paid out fuels is threatening our air, food, water and equally to every citizen. With the current CO2 health. The rising ocean from the melting emissions of 6 billion tons, the proposed polar ice is slowly inundating the coastal land. $15/ton fee for the first year would be The transition to clean-­‐energy approximately $750/year per capita. technologies is the best way to curb For the Pacific West, where hydroelectric greenhouse gas and other pollutants released power is abundant, the impact on heating, into the atmosphere. A dozen countries in cooling and transportation cost is Europe have succeeded in reducing emissions insignificant. Higher oil cost brought on by by employing carbon tax to encourage the $15/ton fee is expected to add $0.10 to a cleaner energy. Among several carbon bills gallon of gas. An average driver who drives that have been introduced in the Congress, 12,000 miles per year would pay roughly $40 fee-­‐and-­‐dividend has the best chance of more a year at the pump, assuming the car promoting job growth, encouraging gets 30 mpg. conservation and, with household income Mickey Nojiri from the dividend, stimulating the economy. Santa Rosa WEB LINK http://www.bohemian.com/northbay/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor/Content?category=2124223 CCL FILENAME 2013 03 14 Bohemian Nojuiri LTE Fee-­‐and-­‐dividend LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 13, 2013 A planet saver Thanks, John Diaz, for supporting the carbon tax ("Our children's burden," Insight, March 10) as the most effective way to promote clean energy and reduce emissions. Increasing cost is one of the most proven, effective ways of generating action on this critical planet-­‐wide issue. I do, however, think supporting an entirely revenue-­‐neutral bill, with all dividends returned to the public, would generate greater support for this much-­‐needed legislation. This includes support from not only the "no new taxes" Republicans, but also from lower-­‐ and middle-­‐income Americans who would find it difficult to keep up with the rising price of carbon. A revenue neutral bill would also allow for greater yearly increases in the carbon tax rate, along with creating support in the rest of the world, we are going to need if we are going to be effective on this issue. If you look closely at the research, the 2-­‐degree (Celsius) rise in emissions that scientists recommend we try to stay under by the end of the century will actually happen in the late 2020s if we continue with our business-­‐as-­‐usual energy policy. And this does not even include the effects from carbon and methane that have begun to be released from melting ice, permafrost and other carbon feedback loops. Please consider this option. Greg Orzech Daly City WEB LINK http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐March-­‐13-­‐4349369.php#page-­‐1 CCL FILENAME 2013 03 13 SanFranChronicle Orzech LTE A planet saver Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-editor-March-13-4349369.php#ixzz2OhCM0fwa
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-editor-March-13-4349369.php#ixzz2OhCDcEHG TRENTON, NEW JERSEY OPINION, MARCH 12, 2013
The sooner we kick the dirty energy habit, the better \
Jack Geller, Residential Project Manager of Advanced
Solar Products, Inc. of Ringoes, installs Sharp 176 solar
panels on the roof of a house in East Amwell Twp. in a
file photo.Matt Rainey/The Star-Ledger
Guest Opinion by Ellie Whitney On reading the letter “Cold turkey isn’t the way to end fossil fuel addiction” (Feb. 27), I got so hot under the collar that my blouse almost caught fire. The writer was criticizing the opinion article by Eliot Daley, “The Keystone hypodermic: One last fix” (Feb. 24), in which he called for an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. The letter writer accused Daley of promoting a fantasy — that we can power our transportation, agriculture and industries with “fairy dust” in the form of “sunlight and windmills”; he thinks clean-­‐energy alternatives to fossil fuels are insignificant and ineffective. It’s a familiar and unfair debate technique: exaggerate and distort what someone has said, and then attack it. But the truth is that we actually can meet our energy needs with clean-­‐energy resources. We can’t go “cold turkey” today, of course. But, certainly, we can shift to clean energy increasingly, year by year. The technologies we need have already been developed; all we must do is fund them, scale them up and put them to use. We can reduce our energy needs by as much as 50 percent or more using energy-­‐
efficiency technologies. We can heat and cool our buildings with geothermal energy, generate electricity from wind and solar energy, and run our vehicles on electricity made cleanly. No fairy dust is needed. It is clear that, with smart planning and political will, we can power not only the United States, but the entire planet, in these ways within two decades. A step-­‐by-­‐step plan to accomplish this feat was described in detail in the October 2009 issue of Scientific American, in an article by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Their plan takes into account the available supply of renewable resources, the amount of land required to use them fully, the infrastructure installations that would make their use How is it, then, that in the month of feasible, and the avoided costs in land and January alone, 1,231 megawatts of new in-­‐
infrastructure that we can gain by not service electrical generating capacity came building the 13,000-­‐plus new coal plants that online in the United States — three times would otherwise be required to meet world more than in January a year ago? How is it demand. It deals with the intermittency of that in Australia, which has some of the wind and solar power and many other issues. world’s richest and least costly fossil-­‐fuel I recommend that anyone interested read it resources, renewable energy is now cheaper attentively. than electricity from newly built coal and gas To meet the skepticism of people who say generating stations — even without such achievements are out of reach, Jacobson subsidies, and even discounting the carbon and Delucchi argue that “the scale is not an tax that Australia is now collecting from fossil insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved fuels? massive transformations before.” After all, We need to accelerate this welcome trend they point out, the year before World War II, by leveling the playing field between fossil the United States’ automobile factories fuels and clean energy. We U.S. taxpayers produced 3 million cars. Over the next four have to stop supporting fossil fuels with the years, they made exactly 139 cars … and billions of dollars of tax breaks their 300,000 aircraft. We can do whatever we producers now receive annually while need to do, if we stop denying what needs to alternative resources receive only minimal be done. support that is orders of magnitude smaller, Today, of the wind turbines that can given one year, but jerked away the next. This potentially be built, only one percent are in shift, too, can’t be made in a single day, but it place and operating. Altogether, nearly 4 can certainly begin, and it can accelerate million turbines are still needed. “That mightily over time. quantity may sound enormous,” authors The climate crisis demands that we Jacobson and Delucchi say, but “the world transform our energy system, beginning now. manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks The smartest way to go is to enact carbon fee-­‐
every year.” Every year! They deal similarly and-­‐dividend legislation as embodied in the with every other argument I have heard that Climate Protection Act (S332), now in the U.S. insists we cannot do what we need to do to Senate. save the planet. Let’s get busy. We have a job to do. “Can’t do” arguments prevail only among Ellie Whitney, Ph.D., has authored many people who are stuck in the old way of books on health and the environment, served thinking that epitomizes the letter writer’s as environmental columnist for the Tallahassee point of view. He thinks that to generate Democrat and studied climate and energy energy, we have to burn something — namely issues since the 1980s. Now retired, she lives in coal, oil or gas. He is blind to the realistic East Windsor and volunteers for the Citizens alternatives. Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/opinion_the_sooner_we_kick_the.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 12 TrentonTimes Whitney E OPED The sooner we kick the dirty energy habit the better RADIO INTERVIEW, MARCH 12, 2013 Citizens Lobby with Life on the Brink Life on the Brink . . . approaching the vanishing point for climate hope. As emissions hit new record, Citizens Climate Lobby Executive Director Mark Reynolds teaches people to lobby the government for sane policy, like Hansen's "Tax and Dividend." . . . Listen to/download the Mark Reynolds interview (27 minutes) in CD Quality or Lo-­‐Fi SHORT DESCRIPTION: Kiss your old climate good-­‐bye. That's the word from scientists and measuring agencies on all fronts. John Vidal of the Guardian was among the first to report that measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere at Hawaii's Mauna Loa observatory hit an all-­‐time new high in February 2013 at 396.8 parts per million. We are pumping out greenhouse gases as ever faster rates. The increase in 2012 was 2.67 parts per million. That is the second highest on record. As hope for a "safe" climate "fade away", Mark Reynolds of the Citizens Climate Lobby shows how we can overcome the fossil fuel lobby machine. I didn't believe that either, until Mark explained what they do. Then a fine new book of essays by environmentalists, some well-­‐known, others new, on the untouchable issue: population. The IPCC knows over-­‐population is one of TWO main drivers of climate change. Why do they only talk about fossil fuels? Why does almost every green group duck talking population (and immigration reform)? Not on Radio Ecoshock, where Philip Cafaro talks about "Life on the Brink." ON OUR WAY TO CLIMATE DISASTER We are pumping out greenhouse gases at ever faster rates. The increase in 2012 was 2.67 parts per million. That is the second highest on record. The highest was in 1998 at 2.93 parts per million when the Indonesian peat fires made that developing country the third largest emitter in the world. Scientists used to say we were increasing at 2 parts per million annually. Models were based on that. Now it's heading toward three, and increasing incrementally. The head of the gas measurement program at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pieter Tans said the increase is from fossil fuel burning, and our chances of staying below the 2 degree C safe level are "fading away." Other researchers from Oregon State University, published in the journal Science, quote " during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F." Earth is hotter now than it has been for the past eleven thousand years. So it's on. Should we just cry about it? Probably. But in this program I'll bring you two voices who claim we could still save a livable Earth. They won't give up on the outside chance humanity could turn back toward survival. Is the fossil fuel lobby too powerful? Start your own lobby. Mark Reynolds tells us how. Then we'll talk about the unspeakable. Did you know the IPCC admits there are TWO main drivers behind climate change, but only looks at one? Solar power, wind power, carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, tech, tech, tech, but our guest Philip Cafaro, editor of the new book "Life On the Brink" is ready to face the nasty issues politicians and environmentalists agree should never be mentioned. Hot Radio for unstable times. I'm Alex Smith. This is Radio Ecoshock. MARK REYNOLDS -­ BE YOUR OWN LOBBYIST FOR THE CLIMATE! Mark Reynolds, Executive Director All the big corporations have lobbyists in Washington. Every Member of Congress has a posse of lobbyists who visit, make donations, or take them on golf vacations in exotic places. And that's not just in America, but in pretty well every country. When it comes to climate, who lobbies for us? Who will speak for our descendants? Our guest is Mark Reynolds. He's the Executive Director of the non-­‐profit group called the Citizens Climate Lobby. We find out Citizen's Climate Lobby teaches people how to lobby their political representatives. It's mainly aimed at American legislators, but there is a Canadian chapter as well. This technique could work in any pseudo-­‐Democratic country. People gather and get a workshop on how lobbying works. It was modelled after the successful "BUILD" lobby blitz, that brought U.S. funding to fight Third World poverty up from practically nothing to many millions of dollars. After the workshop, there are once-­‐a-­‐month conference calls which feature some expert speakers (like Dr. James Hansen of NASA), plus drills in how to get results with elected representatives. People also learn how to mount an effective campaign of letters to the editor or op-­‐ed writing. Reynolds say politicians really monitor such things. These groups also try to get many different voices on board. Mark suggests someone from the military, or a preacher, may be quite effective when visiting the politician in their home riding. Once a year they do a full blitz on Washington, trying to see every Senator and Congressman about climate change. Don't just preach to them, says Reynolds. Listen. Find common ground, something you can relate to, before going. I know my listeners are already asking themselves a lot of hard questions about this. For starters, the people who control the current House of Representatives in America have publicly stated climate change is a hoax, most likely a plot to tax and ruin American freedom. Do climate lobbyists talk to Tea Party denialists? Indeed they do. The Citizens Climate Lobby has visited climate denier Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma several times. Reynolds has a good story about that in our interview. What is the Climate Lobby pushing for? Certainly not bogus solutions like carbon trading. They advocate the "Fee and Dividend" approach suggested by James Hansen. People do pay a "tax" on carbon (raising the price of gas for example). But ALL that money is kept away from government. Instead it is paid back to every citizen in a cheque which eases the pain of paying more. I call it bribing people to do the right thing, with their own money. During the interview, Reynolds mentions "the Pigou club" Find out more on Pigou here, and the club's founder and premise here. Wiki says: "[Greg] Mankiw has become an influential figure in the Blogosphere and online journalism since launching his blog. The blog, originally designed to assist his Ec10 students, has gained a readership that extends far beyond students of introductory economics. In particular, he has used it as a platform to advocate the implementation of pigovian taxes such as a revenue-­neutral carbon tax; to this end Mankiw founded the informal Pigou Club." Here is an op-­‐ed by Mark Reynolds, explaining how Republicans could support this climate action plan. I'm so disgusted with politics, I wouldn't believe this lobby idea could work. But Reynolds mostly convinced me this IS a worthwhile effort. Listen to the interview. Check out this workshop with Mark Reynolds on You tube. Then visit citizensclimatelobby.org. WEB LINK http://www.ecoshock.info/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 12 RadioEcoshock Reynolds INTERVIEW Citizens Lobby with Life on the Brink OPINION, MARCH 11, 2013 China ahead of U.S. on climate change strident opponent of coordinated international efforts to combat climate change -­‐ rivaled only by the United States in this opposition. Yet China has much to lose from the steady encroachment of climate change, and it's finally starting to acknowledge that fact. China is a vast country with many natural resources, but its water supplies are already badly strained in many areas -­‐ a problem that's only going to be aggravated with Smoke billows from the chimney of a heating plant in climate change. The air pollution in its major Beijing. Photo: Alexander F. Yuan, Associated Press cities is among the worst in the world. Finally, a nation that is contributing All of these factors threaten the Chinese heavily to climate change is taking a major government's ability to provide economic step to reduce its emissions. Unfortunately, growth and social stability -­‐ the two things it this global leadership is not coming from the has to maintain in an undemocratic society. United States. It's coming from China. Improving the environment isn't just a matter China is the world's largest emitter of of good policy for the Chinese government, greenhouse gases, so the news (reported by it's a matter of political survival. Xinhua, a state-­‐owned media service) that it's Even if China's plan is driven by its own going to introduce a carbon tax is huge. The internal politics, it's still a better plan than tax is unlikely to be on the scale that experts what the United States has -­‐ which is no plan suggest would make a serious dent in climate at all. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont change: In 2010, China's ministry of finance independent, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-­‐Calif., suggested levying a carbon tax of 10 yuan recently proposed a carbon tax, but their bill ($1.60) per ton in 2012, to rise to 50 yuan has gained no Republican support ($8) per ton in 2020. Experts have suggested of significance. a tax of 500 yuan, or $80 per ton. It's just one more sign that the rest of the Still, even a small Chinese carbon tax world is moving forward on climate change, would mean a dramatic step forward for the boosting their own renewable energy planet. And it's a lot more than anything the industries and improving the health of their United States has done. populations in the process. Meanwhile, the China's announcement also comes as a bit clock is running out and the United States is of a surprise. For years, China has been a still running in place. WEB LINK http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/China-­‐ahead-­‐of-­‐U-­‐S-­‐on-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
4346134.php CCL FILENAME 2013 03 11 SFChronicle OPINION China ahead of US on climate change EDITORIAL, MARCH 8, 2013 Our children's burden By John Diaz Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-­Calif., left, accompanied by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2012, to urge the Republican leadership to take up the bipartisan Senate transportation bill. Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press On a personal level, most of us would go to extraordinary lengths to steer our children and grandchildren away from physical or economic peril. Yet look at the mess we're leaving them with public policies that can only be described as selfish and shortsighted: Global warming will accelerate to a catastrophic degree, scientists agree, unless we break our reliance on fossil fuels. The national deficit now exceeds $15 trillion, or more than $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. And, still, Washington has yet to get serious about addressing either issue. Here's a way to attack those two long-­‐term problems at once: Level a tax on carbon -­‐ to push the transition to cleaner energy -­‐ and apply every penny of the revenue to reduction of the federal debt. Call it the "Future for Our Grandchildren Act of 2013." I realize that this Congress is more likely to pass a resolution praising Kim Jong Un or condemning motherhood than to adopt a straight-­‐up plan to address climate change and the national debt, undiluted with pet projects, tax breaks for favored interests or other political softeners. The special interests that would benefit most from this plan -­‐ future generations -­‐ would not be there to compete with the clamor of the lobbyists who would either object to the new tax ... or want a piece of it. Still, it would be interesting to see someone on Capitol Hill introduce such a bill and challenge lawmakers to make arguments against a relatively modest sacrifice -­‐ in higher fuel costs and spending restraint -­‐ to relieve the burdens created by our excessive consumption of environmental and fiscal resources. The argument for a carbon tax is solid: It forces fossil fuel prices to reflect the environmental costs they create, and it gives developers of green technologies a greater assurance of future demand for alternative energies -­‐ especially if the tax is structured to rise over time. The closest thing to my plan was a recently introduced bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, to levy a $20-­‐a-­‐
ton tax on carbon or methane equivalents. Predictably, the bill has generated no the Coronado grassroots group Citizens Republican support of any consequence. Climate Lobby. A contingent of informed and Just as predictably, the Sanders-­‐Boxer bill earnest representatives of the local chapter would spend about 75 percent of the $1.2 (economists, attorneys, scientists) visited trillion it would raise over its first decade. It with our editorial board last week. They like would set aside just $300 billion for deficit the Sanders-­‐Boxer bill, though they want the reduction -­‐ a tiny dent in the $15 trillion debt. carbon tax to be pushed higher -­‐ and all of the It would fund everything from home revenue distributed to U.S. residents. weatherization to a tripling of the federal But the notion of a tax-­‐redistribution budget for energy research and development. program -­‐ while perhaps good politics -­‐ The biggest chunk of new spending (60 works at cross purposes with a purported percent) would be redistributed to American national commitment to wean ourselves from families. Each U.S. resident would receive a fossil fuels. It has no correlation between monthly payment as a share of the carbon-­‐
energy consumption and rebate. The notion tax revenue. that the effects of the tax on 300 million Imagine the sweet double dip to Alaskans Americans will be buffered by a monthly who now receive a cut of the state's check undercuts the grim reality of what it oil royalties. will take to slow the warming of the planet: The Sanders-­‐Boxer bill has received an short-­‐term sacrifice and a long-­‐term changing endorsement -­‐ and a prod to go further -­‐ from of our ways.
WEB LINK http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/Our-­‐children-­‐s-­‐burden-­‐4340367.php CCL FILENAME 2013 03 08 SanFranChronicle Diaz EDITORIAL Our childrens burden LINCOLN, NEBRASKA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 8, 2013 Praise for Haar The citizens of Nebraska should applaud and support Sen. Ken Haar's effort to nudge the state into the planning required to deal with the challenges of climate change ("Experts: Climate change requires planning," Feb. 28 and "Scientists want to use more renewable energy," March 2). As important as both personal and state actions are, it is even more critical that we demand federal legislation on this issue. A predictable and steadily rising fee placed on carbon-­‐based fuels at their source would more adequately reflect the real cost of the use of these fuels to our health and the health of our planet. It would encourage the development of renewable resources such as wind and solar, so richly available in our state. The funds collected should be redistributed per capita to U.S. households. A border adjustment could keep exports competitive with imports. This market-­‐based approach should appeal to a wide range of constituents. It is only prudent for us to act now to mitigate the costly effects of climate change. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. Becky Seth Lincoln WEB LINK http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-­‐praise-­‐for-­‐haar/article_9b0f92fe-­‐97f3-­‐
5801-­‐87c6-­‐b6ad4d1d63c2.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 08 JournalStar Seth LTE Praise for Haar LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 19, 2013 Where’s Congress when climate change is seen as military threat? RE “CHIEF of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry” (Page A7, March 9): If a Navy admiral says our biggest security threat in the Pacific comes from climate change, then that means that members of Congress who stymie serious climate change legislation are akin to seditious subversives collaborating with multinational corporations, banks, and financiers who profit from the development and sale of fossil fuels. When lawmakers feign doubt about climate change by repeating misinformation promulgated by fossil-­‐fuel interests, they are effectively aiding and abetting the enemy. So-­‐called balanced reporting on the subject of climate change allows elected officials, fossil-­‐fuel lobbyists, and others to continue their con game and fool the public longer. I appreciate that Bryan Bender’s article presented Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III’s information without resorting to phony balancing. Judy Weiss Brookline The writer is a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2013/03/18/where-­‐congress-­‐when-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
seen-­‐military-­‐threat/VG0BBs0MUdzueiGFUsegxK/story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 08 BostonGlobe Weiss LTE Wheres Congress when climate change is seen as military threat LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 6, 2013 Keystone, energy concerns Regarding the editorial “Keystone schizophrenia? Why disdain for those with pipeline: Reason trumps hysteria" (March 5): contrary view, supported by 99 percent of U-­‐T, why the name-­‐calling and selective peer-­‐reviewed climatologists? To commit reasoning? The State Department – in a twist infrastructure and our future to dirty tar fuels of logic – says Keystone would create minimal is short-­‐term and blind (one-­‐third the size of environmental damage because Alberta tar California will be destroyed). The technology sands’ exploitation is inevitable (but exists to build a clean energy future, which questions our need for it due to the U.S. boon produces more jobs than oil and gas. A in oil). Canadians are fighting this, too. revenue-­‐neutral carbon pollution fee, Climatologists warn tar sands exploitation is returned to all households, accelerates the a giant step backward. conversion. CO2 must decrease. The U-­‐T has John H. Reaves acknowledged global warming is real but now San Diego ignores the science. Ideological WEB LINK http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/06/keystone-­‐pipeline-­‐energy-­‐climate-­‐warming/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 06 UTSanDiego Reaves LTE Keystone – energy concerns OPINION, MARCH 6, 2013 Keystone to Doom Obama Should Reject Pipeline By Olivia Hines LITTLE ROCK — On the weekend of February 17, I was part of a group of about 25 people from Arkansas who traveled 42 hours [to Washington, D.C.] to attend the “Forward on Climate” rally, believed to be the largest climate demonstration in U.S. history. We were part of a crowd estimated at 40,000-­‐
plus urging President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project of TransCanada. The rally was sponsored by 350. org, the Sierra Club, the Hip Hop Caucus and others. These organizations know that this pipeline would carry tar sands, which is a highly inefficient energy source-­‐taking two tons of tar sands from the floor of the demolished boreal forest to produce one barrel of bitumen. Bitumen must then be extensively refined and produces three times the pollution of conventional oil. In order for the northern stretch of the pipeline to be completed, President Obama must approve it since it will cross a national border. The rally was designed to be a message to President Obama urging him not to approve this pipeline. Most of us had never been to a rally like this, but we felt it was vital to show the president that if he does not approve the pipeline, he will have the support of many Americans who know it will be a threat to this and future generations. Standing in the cold with tens of thousands from around the nation in unity for the preservation of our soil, water, air and climate was a deeply meaningful experience. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, said it best when he stated that allowing this pipeline and tar sands from Canada to be used for energy would be like “igniting a carbon bomb.” Chief Jacqueline Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation reminded us of the power of common people united when she said: “Never in my life have I ever seen white and native work together until now.” Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades of the relationship between greenhouse-­‐gas emissions and our changing climate, which we are all now witnessing through storms like the Joplin tornado, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, andthe record droughts all over the world, including the U.S. and Arkansas. Burning the tar sands will warm our climate beyond recognition and into a place that will be very hard to live in. Why would we choose to do this? It is frightening that most people don’t realize how much of a threat climate change is to food production and the economy. Ironically, the economy is often given as the reason the U.S. can’t scale back greenhouse-­‐
gas emissions. The Big Oil and Big Coal lobbies claim it is too expensive to use other types of fuel, but not mitigating climate change will wreak havoc on the economy. We have only just begun to understand how expensive superstorms, droughts, wildfires and flooding are. Climate change is not just an issue for the coastlines, either. Arkansas is one of the top 10 states for rapid warming, and crop staples of Arkansas like rice and cotton are already being reconsidered for more drought-­‐
resistant crops. Many elders have described to me what the Arkansas climate used to be like and how different it is now. Our lakes and streams are down significantly, making water-­‐resource planning a challenge. No one is immune to climate change. We all share the climate. If we don’t unite in our commitment to reduce greenhouse-­‐gas emissions, it is at our own peril. Climate change is happening rapidly, and the U.S. has been slow to act, which has stalled international efforts to address this global issue. The U.S. can be an economic leader in renewable energy and climate-­‐
change solutions or we can disrupt the world climate and economy even further with this pipeline. President Obama has that choice to make. If you have educated yourself on climate science, then you know this decision is of enormous magnitude, not just to the U.S., but to life on Earth. Olivia Hines is a horticulture student at the University of Arkansas. WEB LINK www.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/mar/06/keystone-­‐doom-­‐20130306/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 06 ArkansasOnline Hines OPINION Keystone to doom – Obama should reject pipeline RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 5, 2013 Power and the poor Rick Martinez should be ashamed of his Feb. 27 column “Offshore drilling? Do it for the poor.” He is either truly misinformed about current climate science, global energy markets, renewable energy production and potential in N.C., and the serious risks associated with fracking and offshore drilling or he chose to manipulate these issues in order to promote N.C. fossil fuel extraction under the guise of helping the least of our state’s citizenry. His circular logic concludes that even though we know fossil fuels contribute to global warming, they are our best hope for jobs and getting the poor to school, so that they too can learn that fossil fuels are contributing to global warming and, maybe, they can discover a solution. There are policy initiatives that can mitigate the effects of climate change while simultaneously protecting the economy. Putting a steadily rising tax on carbon coupled with a steadily rising dividend to all consumers would send strong signals to the marketplace that would allow us to transition to a clean-­‐energy economy while shielding the public from increased energy costs. How we address the poor and the environment does have moral implications. We don’t have to sacrifice either. Holmes Graybeal Pittsboro WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/05/2727631/holmes-­‐graybeal-­‐power-­‐and-­‐the.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 05 NewsObserver Graybeal LTE Power and the poor LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 5, 2013 America lags behind in energy research innovation A letter entitled “Our moon shot,” published in the Salt Lake Tribune on February 16 by my friend Robert Speiser expresses perfectly my thoughts on the March 3 Cincinnati Enquirer article entitled “Climate change already remaking how Americans live.” Mr. Speiser has allowed me to share his letter with you: “In 1961, President John Kennedy astounded the public by vowing to land an American on the moon “before this decade is out.” Although the Russians were ahead in the space race at the time, we got there first in less than nine years. Facing the climate challenge, the Chinese and Germans have invested heavily in wind and solar power. Again, we need to come from behind. Again, our president has called for drastic action. The space race didn’t simply get us to the moon; it triggered research, development and enterprise on many fronts. Our society and economy changed, becoming much stronger. We led the world in scientific and technological innovation. Now we have another, very different shot at greatness: to fundamentally reshape the way we get and use energy. To move decisively, we need to phase out fossil fuels as much as possible, rather than dig and drill to get at the last, difficult to extract reserves. We also need to see ourselves as we did not long ago: ready to think big, work bold, build new and thrive.” Robert Bonney Mount Lookout WEB LINK www.cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2013/03/05/america-­‐lags-­‐behind-­‐in-­‐energy-­‐research-­‐
innovation/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 05 CincinnatiEnquirer Bonney LTE America lags behind in energy research innovation OPED, MARCH 4, 2013 Financial incentives help push greener technologies By Judy Weiss WASHINGTON, DC, March 4, 2013 -­‐ There are numerous ways to slow climate change before it causes further damage to our economy, health, children’s future, and the well-­‐being of people and species across the planet. First, we must reduce green house emissions that cause climate change. As a nation, we are using conservation and new cleaner technologies to reduce emissions, but we also need financial incentives to accele
rate effort
s. Source: EPA (2010) analysis of total greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector Conservation and new technology in transportation The EPA reports 27% of greenhouse gases arise from transportation. Reducing the amount people drive reduces those greenhouse gasses. However, people need realistic alternative options to driving that provide the convenience of cars without harming the environment. The White House took crucial action issuing higher fuel efficiency standards for manufacturers of automobiles, light trucks and heavy commercial vehicles which are valuable, but inadequate by themselves. New vehicles with new technology will double miles per gallon rates but are more expensive to purchase than inefficient polluting vehicles. Most consumers and businesses will only buy these vehicles if rising fuel prices offset the initial investment to buy a car. Conservation and new technology in commercial and residential building use According to the EPA, 11% of greenhouse gases pertain to buildings. Adding insulation to residential and commercial buildings, installing new energy-­‐efficient windows, planting trees as wind shields, and setting indoor winter temperatures lower will help reduce those negative gases. Many states, citiesutilities sponsor free energy audits with upgrade rebates to help people reduce energy consumption. Yet consumers are more likely to undertake these expensive upgrades if oil and natural gas prices rise. Conservation and clean technologies for electricity The EPA says 1/3 of our greenhouse gases are emitted during the production of electricity from coal and methane. Emissions would drop if we use less electricity by implementing changes such as raising air conditioning temperature settings, using fans, and buying energy efficient bulbs and appliances. In the short term, conservation methods are all we can do to reduce electricity emissions. Long term, a better way to reduce these emissions is generating electricity without fossil fuels. Many states require utilities produce some electricity from clean energy, such as , wind, solar, geothermal, and some biomass. Such efforts could be accelerated, but retirement of coal plants and their replacement with new facilities is expensive. States and utilities worry about consumer responses to higher electricity prices. However, if fossil fuels cost more, utilities will obtain more electricity from clean energy sources. Economic motivation to clean up our act What would motivate people to invest in fuel-­‐efficient vehicles and home improvements, or switch to electricity from clean energy sources? If fossil fuel prices were scheduled to increase a small amount every year for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, people would have a price signal encouraging them to invest in conservation. A Federal carbon tax starting at $15/ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissionswhich would translate into roughly 15 cents/gallon of gasoline at the pump is low enough to give individuals and businesses time to invest in low carbon systems of transportation, heating and electricity. Increasing the tax another $15/ton every year would encourage everyone to eventually conserve energy or switch to clean energy sources. Not all states require utilities to get a percentage of their electricity from clean energy sources. Does yours? Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions http://www.c2es.org/us-­states-­
regions/policy-­maps/renewable-­energy-­
standards Unfortunately, not only are old coal plants still in operation, some states such as Virginia, Mississippi and Texas, and nations, such as China, are even building more coal-­‐powered electricity plants, because coal is cheap. Some of the new coal plants are billed as “clean coal,” but there are serious doubts that their technology is clean, that it will work, or that true clean coal is even possible. How does a carbon tax work? Carbon taxes are paid by energy companies upon extraction at coal mines, oil/gas wells, or ports if imported. A gradually increasing tax leads to steady price increases for oil and gas, electricity from fossil fuels, and products that require these inputs. Gently increasing prices gives utility companies, industries, vehicle owners and consumers incentives to switch from energy that pollutes to clean energy, and to invest in conservation. A carbon tax also encourages investors to invest in clean energy companies and new technologies because they see the prospect of concern is that carbon taxes are regressive, many new customers and profits. This new meaning they take a higher percentage of private investment would stimulate growth poorer families’ household income. However, throughout our economy. carbon taxes are not regressive if offset with payroll tax reductions. Another objection is Easing the start of a carbon tax the tax disadvantages U.S. manufacturers Carbon taxes push people to conserve or when competing against products made in switch to clean energy. However, the countries without a carbon tax. transition period during the switch could Applying border adjustments to products challenge people living on a budget unable to coming from countries that do not charge afford new cars , home insulation, or carbon taxes would help protect U.S. relocation to reduce commuting. Therefore, manufacturers. Government can rebate the carbon tax proposals usually include tax revenues from these border fees to U.S. rebates to help people cope with rising prices companies exporting goods to countries and the costs of conservation. Areduction in without carbon taxes, allowing domestic payroll taxes or a monthly carbon tax businesses to remain competitive abroad. “dividend” check would help offset the Finally, some analysts worry carbon taxes burden of a carbon tax. will slow our economy. However, the opposite is true. Climate change hurts our Structuring a carbon tax right economy, while carbon taxes Although carbon taxes are the best can spur investment in new technologies and solution to climate change, analysts worry in businesses creating millions of new jobs. about getting it right. The most common WEB LINK http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/communities-­‐health-­‐and-­‐science-­‐
today/2013/mar/4/financial-­‐incentives-­‐prod-­‐adoption-­‐greener-­‐technol/ CCL FILENAME 2013 03 04 WashingtonTimes Weiss OPED Financial incentives prod adoption of greener technologies RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2013 A green market The Feb. 14 article “Dems rise to Obama’s climate bill challenge” paints a grim picture about Congress’s willingness to address the economically devastating storms, droughts and wildfires that desecrated this country last year. The president has vowed to address the issue of climate change using all of the executive authority that he has access to, but instead of expanding the size of government regulation, Congress can follow the words of Sen. Marco Rubio and look to free enterprise and the market to address one of the great challenges of our time. Through a fee and dividend approach to carbon pricing we can reduce our consumption of fuels that soil the pureness of our air and water while promoting job growth in quality, green jobs just like the ones that employ over 14,000 North Carolinians. Now is the time for a market-­‐based solution that addresses both climate change and economic development. Donald Addu Durham WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/04/2725064/donald-­‐addu-­‐a-­‐green-­‐market.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 04 NewsObserver Addu LTE A green market TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2013 Vitter should lead on energy bill Gary Rucinski Citizens Climate Lobby Northeast Regional There is good reason why carbon-­‐tax bills clean energy development, sparking a broad-­‐
being floated in the current Congress remind based economic recovery and creating Sen. David Vitter of the cap-­‐and-­‐trade bills of millions of jobs that can’t be exported. the past — both would cause the price of As good as these results will be, Sen. Vitter fossil fuels to increase. These increases are could still help improve these bills. He could justified because fossil fuel use imposes costs insist that the bills increase fossil fuel prices on society in the form of damages from fast enough to stimulate the private extreme weather events caused by climate investment needed to quickly develop the change. clean energy resources we need and that 100 The essentially universal scientific percent of the proceeds from the tax are consensus that increased levels of CO2 in the returned to households on a flat basis. atmosphere are causing catastrophic climate These improvements would ensure that change in our lifetimes and our experiences we, our children and our grandchildren avoid with droughts, wildfires, floods and damaging the worst effects of climate change and that storms last year make it untenable that any low-­‐ and moderate-­‐income households do not elected representative would continue to shoulder unfair financial burdens during the deny the reality or causes of climate change transition to a clean energy economy. any longer. A clear majority of Americans would cheer For this reason, Sen. Vitter should look Sen. Vitter’s courage if he became the first beyond the negatives of rising fossil fuel Republican officeholder to break with party prices to the positives of a carbon tax. Rising orthodoxy to cosponsor a carbon tax bill that fossil fuel prices will stimulate private met these guidelines. investment in conservation, efficiency and WEB LINK http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20130302/LETTERS/130309936/1031/opinion03?Title=Vitter-­‐
should-­‐lead-­‐on-­‐energy-­‐bill CCL FILENAME 2013 03 02 HoumaToday Rucinski LTE Vitter should lead on energy bill YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 1, 2013 George Will denies scientific evidence
How disappointing to see the York Dispatch ran Conservative columnist George Will’s anti-­‐science nonsense in “A recipe for conservative revival.” What experience does Mr. Will have in climate science? According to Wikipedia, Mr. Will has a M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in politics from Princeton University. How does this qualify Mr. Will to disregard 97% of climate scientists who say the planet is warming and we are causing it by burning fossil fuels? It doesn’t. Mr. Will seems to suggest that since every year is not warmer than the last, global warming is debunked. This is like saying since July 21st is cooler than July 20th, summer must be over. There is much variation from year to year, but the overall long-­‐term trend is warming. He also ignores the fact that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. As GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt put it, “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” It’s deeply disturbing to see these kind of misleading tactics used again and again in order to delay action on climate change and continue with business as usual. Climate change deniers have successfully managed to put off action on climate change for decades using these tactics while the projections from climate scientists from decades ago are happening right before our eyes. Actual observations are showing that scientists in fact have underestimated many facets of global warming. Mr. Wills and the Washington Post’s actions (for continuing to support him) are reckless and irresponsible. I sincerely hope the York Dispatch reconsiders its support for George Will’s column. George Will could take a lesson from Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal’s directive to the GOP when he said “stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.” The science is clear; we need to now focus on solutions. Porter Hedge York, PA Citizens Climate Lobby [email protected]
717-308-9974
WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 03 01 YorkDispatch Hedge LTE George Will denies scientific evidence LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 1, 2013 President needs our support on climate talks I’m heartened that the Obama tropical diseases like Dengue Fever to our administration is going to focus on thwarting shores, and living on the beach in Tallahassee the worst effects of climate change, and all of is not nearly as good as it sounds. us should support this effort. Consider this: Contact Rep. Steve Southerland and Sens. Extreme weather events are becoming the Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio. Tell them the new normal, here and around the globe; quickest way to reduce pollution from fossil natural disasters were declared in 48 states fuels and not crash the economy is to enact a last year; and more extreme storms like fee on carbon and return the revenue to the Superstorm Sandy will make a mockery of people. deficit reduction and bring down the Len Adams insurance industry — ready for an encore, [email protected] Florida? The warming climate is bringing WEB LINK http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303020005 CCL FILENAME 2013 03 01 TallahasseeDem Adams LTE President needs our support on climate talks LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 1, 2013 Humans are causing climate change Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s position have that. Changes that should take many on climate change has some facts right but it thousands of years are going to happen gets the conclusion wrong. Climate change is quickly now and will happen even faster real and carbon dioxide emissions are the without reducing carbon emissions. major preventable cause. Of 13,950 peer-­‐
If scientists agree, why don’t we? Perhaps reviewed climate articles published from we think Earth is impervious to our activities. 1991 to 2012, only 24 clearly rejected global Perhaps, we simply want to believe warming or endorsed a cause other than CO everything will turn out OK. Perhaps in the emissions for climate change. It’s true that rush to create jobs, pay our bills and improve Earth cyclically warms and cools, that the sun our lives, we forget that the human race affects our climate and that soot and needs to keep an eye on the long run. But particulate matter affect us and glacial labeling the fact of global warming a liberal melting. enterprise and myth, misinterpreting the data I wish that explained it all; if it did, I would and impugning the motives of scientists are stop worrying about my children’s future. well-­‐worn and tired tactics. Don’t let them Sadly, those explanations work only before fool you. Our congressional leaders need to the past 150 years. Since then, the only act now to control CO emissions and preserve explanation for our rapid warming is the our children’s future security and welfare. increasing greenhouse effect from rising CO Bill Nelson emissions. Humans could adapt given time — Richmond something like 10,000 years — but we don’t WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/your-­‐opinion/correspondent-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
day/article_7f040575-­‐2288-­‐5667-­‐a444-­‐a56c0e8c1214.html CCL FILENAME 2013 03 01 RichmondTimesD Nelson LTE Humans are causing climate change 2013 02 28 PoetEconomist Robertson FEATURE The climate solution moment is now
Web link https://poeteconomist.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-climate-solution-moment-is-now/
THE POET ECONOMIST
THE CLIMATE SOLUTION MOMENT IS NOW
February 28, 2013 ·
by Joseph Robertson
Watch where you are going! It’s simple advice, given to every child and which immediately comes to mind whenever someone
obviously slams into us as we walk in the street or in a crowded train station, shop or airport. We expect all other drivers to watch
where they are going, so we can be relatively free of the fear that we will suddenly be struck by some unconscious aggressor not
interested in our safety or their own.
Yet somehow, enough of us overlook this simple, sound advice enough of the time that every day there are tragedies on the roads and
encounters in which otherwise grounded people find themselves suddenly enraged, baffled and disappointed, even scared nearly to
death, by someone else’s coldness to consequence.
It is one of the fundamental human qualities to observe not only incidents and occurrences but also patterns, trends and the
gathering of momentum. It is, then, by extension, a natural human project to synthesize information from different realms of
experience.
What one observes, personally, with the five senses, is one kind of evidence, but to understand the realm of human experience fully,
we need to add to that the knowledge that emerges from our collective projects of problem-solving: science, politics, engineering,
even the cognitive intuitions tied to human relationships and emotional intelligence. Ethics, justice, the abstract sense of what we
call balance, or reciprocity: without these, we cannot say we are doing our best at governing our own lives or the society in which we
live.
On the new Ecomagination program The Energy Fixers, we hear another variation of this important advice. Michael Rogers, the
New York Times’ resident futurist, put it like this:
In many ways, the United States citizen, today, is a little like the frog in
the pan of hot water, that’s sitting on an open flame on the stove. The frog
just thinks it’s getting a little bit warmer; the frog doesn’t know that
sooner or later that pot is going to boil.
As a species, as the thoughtful foragers of the natural world—of Divine Creation, if you like—we tend to organize ourselves to better
watch where we are going. Religion does this; legitimate political structures do this; we want our laws to do this. And all of the arts
and the many fields of deliberative inquiry also do this, in their way. It is vitally important that we be honest in our evaluations of
what is and act earnestly and with our best moral fiber and intelligent imagining, to work for and bring into being the best outcomes.
We expect this of others, and so we should demand it of ourselves.
At present, the state of Delaware is setting up the framework for a state-wide sea-level-rise evacuation strategy. With as much as
80% of residents living near tidal bodies of water, the risk to life and property of climate destabilization-induced flooding may be the
worst in the nation. With the region also “sinking” geologically, the sea-level-rise is happening at twice the expected rate.
Such elements of lived reality are crucial for understanding where we find ourselves, at this moment in history, as a nation, and as an
industrializing species suited to brainstorm smart solutions to serious crisis-level problems. As sea levels continue to rise, disasters
like Hurricane Sandy will become both more frequent and more severe; they already have.
Our current model for accessing and redistributing energy—held in the substance and activity of nature—is failing. We pay as much
as 5 to 8 times what we pay at the gasoline pump, through hidden channels of systemic financing, in order to use carbon-based fuels.
The other costs are externalized—from the industry to us—by way of direct and indirect subsidies, tax breaks, expensive government
services provided for the industry and by way of the impact on human health.
We know we do not need carbon-based or liquid combustible fuels. We know that cutting edge technologies already in existence can
take us far beyond meeting current and future demand. We know exactly how to spark an economically vibrant transition to clean
renewables, and to do so affordably.
The climate solution moment is now. The impacts are already worse that predicted, and mounting. While Delaware seriously
investigates ways to evacuate up to 18% of its population to higher ground, New York City is exploring ways to build barriers in New
York Harbor to protect the city from ever more severe storm surges. We can solve this; we know how to do it; we must commit our
imaginations and our collective willpower to constructive problem solving.
The time is now.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 FP Letters to the Editor: Out of touch Re: “Burying carbon doubts,” Peter Foster, Feb. 27 Peter Foster describes policy tools to International Monetary Fund? The president address climate change as “the greatest of the World Bank? The CEOs of ExxonMobil attempted global power grab since Lenin set and JPMorgan Chase? up the Comintern” and suggests that “the Oh, wait, all of them have joined scores of entire theory of catastrophic man-­‐made conservative economists in calling for a climate science and policy might be a crock.” carbon tax. Peter Foster is shockingly out of Does Mr. Foster realize that he touch with reality. Why the Financial Post, an increasingly sounds like a paranoid authority on business and economic affairs, conspiracy theorist? If he doesn’t believe the continues to provide a credible platform for robust, peer-­‐reviewed research of 97% of the delusional, anti-­‐science ramblings of a climate scientists, then what will it take to drunken uncle at Thanksgiving dinner is convince him that climate change poses beyond me. unacceptable risks to our environment and Patrick DeRochie our economy and that a carbon tax is the Toronto most effective and economical way of addressing it? The managing director of the WEB LINK http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/28/fp-­‐letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐out-­‐of-­‐touch/ CCL FILENAME 2013 02 28 FinancialPost DeRochie LTE FP Letters to the editor out of touch ST LOUIS, MISSOURI POST-­DISPATCH OPED, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 GOP can be part of climate change solution By Mark Reynolds Sunflower Electric Cooperative's coal-­fired power plant churns out electricity in this Friday, Feb. 2, 2007, file photo in Holcomb, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, file) A carbon tax bill that gives revenue back to households? Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-­‐Calif.) placed on the table when she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-­‐Vt.) announced plans to introduce “carbon-­‐fee-­‐and-­‐dividend” legislation. Their proposal places a fee on coal, oil and natural gas at the first point of sale and then rebates a substantial part of the revenue to the public as monthly “dividends,” either by check or electronically. At a press conference to introduce the Climate Protection Act, Boxer said her aim was to get legislation to the floor of the Senate by summer. What could possibly be better? How about Republican support? Without backing from some GOP lawmakers, the bill stands little chance of passage in the Senate, much less the Republican-­‐controlled House. Unless it is bipartisan, any climate legislation — no matter its intention — amounts to little more than a gesture. Given President Obama’s ultimatum to Congress to cut carbon or “I will,” the GOP has great incentive to support a “market-­‐based solution” to the climate crisis. The alternative is expansion of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Efforts to block those regulations will prove to be a waste of time and energy, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants that warm the Earth. Time and time again, conservatives extol the power of the free market rather than government to make good things happen in our society. It’s time, then, for Republicans to “walk the talk” and embrace a tax on carbon that returns revenue to the public. Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to President George W. Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, explains the conservative rationale for a carbon tax: “Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits. That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources.” While Obama wields the hammer that may move Republicans toward legislative action, the Boxer-­‐Sanders bill, in its current form, stands little chance of attracting support from across the aisle. The phrase that pays among conservatives is “revenue-­‐neutral,” meaning it needs to be an approach that doesn’t increase the size of government, which is anathema to all Republicans. Here are the main provisions of the Boxer-­‐
Sanders bill: •
Impose a $20 per ton carbon dioxide fee and equivalent fee on methane emissions, rising 5.6 percent annually; •
60 percent of the revenue would be returned monthly as direct “dividends,” electronically or by check; •
The tax is applied upstream (at the first point of sale of the fossil fuel), and the bill includes border tax adjustments to protect domestic industry and induce other nations to enact carbon taxes; •
25 percent of revenue would go to the general Treasury for deficit reduction; and •
10 percent to 15 percent of revenue will fund clean energy proposals and low-­‐
income weatherization. It all sounds good until the final item, and this is where the Boxer-­‐Sanders bill becomes a non-­‐starter for Republicans. Conservatives are pretty clear they have no intention of increasing federal revenue and expanding the role of government. Unless it is revenue-­‐
neutral — and there’s even some debate as to whether using funds to reduce the deficit makes it revenue-­‐neutral — Republicans will remain on the sidelines. What this all means is that the two warring factions in Congress will need to meet each other halfway: Republicans agreeing to a price on carbon and Democrats agreeing to make it revenue-­‐neutral. With study after study telling us the window is rapidly closing on our ability to contain climate change, our nation and our world can wait no longer for Congress to enact legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. A direct price on carbon-­‐based fuels, with revenue returned to households, is the most promising mechanism to cut those emissions. The Boxer-­‐Sanders bill delivers on this approach. Make the Climate Protection Act revenue-­‐neutral and we just might find enough Republican support to get it passed. Mark Reynolds is the executive director for Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization commited to creating the political will for a stable climate. The organization has 82 chapters. WEB LINK http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/gop-­‐can-­‐be-­‐part-­‐of-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
solution/article_405028ad-­‐0355-­‐5c07-­‐bd27-­‐6bf733a1de66.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 27 StLPostDispatch Reynolds OPED GOP can be part of climate change solution LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 Mexico ahead of us Re: “Keystone XL’s tug-­of-­war,” Claudia Cattaneo, Feb. 14 Claudia Cattaneo’s article reports that for the pipeline in the U.S. If Ms. Cattaneo had Mexico has no greenhouse regulations. This is done her research she would understand that wrong. On World Environment Day 2012 this is not the case at all. Indeed the Keystone Mexican President Calderon signed XL pipeline has proven a deeply decisive issue legislation in to place that mandates CO2 amongst the unions, with many such as the emissions be reduced by 30% from business-­‐
Amalgamated Transit Union, the Transport as-­‐usual levels by 2020, and by 50% from Workers Union, United Steelworkers, the 2000 levels by 2050. Contrast this with United Autoworkers, the Communications Canada, which the Global Legislators Workers of America and the Service Organization reported last month is the only Employees International Union all opposing country to have regressed on its climate the Keystone pipeline based on policies and Mexico doesn’t appear so bad environmental concerns. after all. Camille Loxley Additionally, the article provides an Toronto impression that there is wide union support WEB LINK http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/27/fp-­‐letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐to-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐or-­‐not/ CCL FILENAME 2013 02 27 FinancialPost Loxley LTE Mexico ahead of us TRENTON, N.J. OP-­ED, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 This Op-­‐Ed appeared in many major newspapers across the country. Direct price on carbon-­based fuels, with revenue returned to households, holds great promise By Mark Reynolds Times of Trenton guest opinion column A carbon tax bill that gives revenue back to households? Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-­‐Calif.) placed on the table when she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-­‐Vt.) announced plans to introduce “carbon fee and dividend” legislation. Their proposal places a fee on coal, oil and natural gas at the first point of sale and then rebates a substantial part of the revenue to the public as monthly “dividends,” either by check or electronically. At a press conference to introduce the Climate Protection Act, Boxer said her aim was to get legislation to the floor of the Senate by summer. What could possibly be better? How about Republican support? Without backing from some GOP lawmakers, the legislation stands little chance of passage in the Senate, much less the Republican-­‐controlled House. Unless it is bipartisan, any climate legislation — no matter its intention — amounts to little more than a gesture. Given President Obama’s ultimatum to Congress to cut carbon or “I will,” the GOP has great incentive to support a market-­‐based solution to the climate crisis. The alternative is expansion of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Efforts to block those regulations will prove to be a waste of time and energy, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other pollutants that warm the Earth. Time and time again, conservatives extol the power of the free market rather than government to make good things happen in our society. It’s time, then, for Republicans to “walk the talk” and embrace a tax on carbon that returns revenue to the public. Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to President George W. Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, explains the conservative rationale for a carbon tax: “Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits. That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources.” While Obama wields the hammer that may move Republicans toward legislative action, the Boxer-­‐Sanders measures, in their current form, stand little chance of attracting support from across the aisle. The phrase that pays among conservatives is “revenue-­‐neutral,” meaning it needs to be an approach that doesn’t increase the size of government, which is anathema to all Republicans. Here are the main provisions of the Boxer-­‐
Sanders proposed legislation: • Impose a $20 per ton CO2 fee and equivalent fee on methane emissions that rise 5.6 percent annually; •• Sixty percent of the revenue would be returned monthly as direct “dividends,” electronically or by check; •• The tax is applied upstream (at the first point of sale of the fossil fuel) and the bill includes border tax adjustments to protect domestic industry and induce other nations to enact carbon taxes; •• Twenty-­‐five percent of revenue would go to the general Treasury for deficit reduction; and • Ten percent to 15 percent of revenue will fund clean-­‐energy proposals and weatherization for low-­‐income households. It all sounds good until the final item, and this is where the Boxer-­‐Sanders bill becomes a non-­‐starter for Republicans. Conservatives are pretty clear they have no intention of increasing federal revenue and expanding the role of government. Unless it is revenue-­‐
neutral — and there’s even some debate as to whether using funds to reduce the deficit makes it revenue-­‐neutral — Republicans will remain on the sidelines. What this all means is that the two warring factions in Congress will need to meet each other halfway: Republicans agreeing to a price on carbon and Democrats agreeing to make it revenue-­‐neutral. With study after study telling us the window is rapidly closing on our ability to contain climate change, our nation and our world can wait no longer for Congress to enact legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. A direct price on carbon-­‐based fuels, with revenue returned to households, is the most promising mechanism to cut those emissions. The Boxer-­‐Sanders measures deliver on this approach. Make the Climate Protection Act revenue-­‐neutral and we just might find enough Republican support to get it passed. Mark Reynolds is the executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/opinion_direct_price_on_carbon.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 26 TrentonTimes Reynolds OPED Direct price on carbon-­‐based fuels, with revenue returned to households, holds great promise ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OPED, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 A climate-change plan Republicans
could love
By Mark Reynolds In his most forceful language to date, President Obama made it clear at his second inaugural that he will devote much of his energy to "reduce the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." If legislative action is not forthcoming, it appears Obama will reach for every tool at his disposal, using executive authority to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress. One way or another, America will respond to the threat of climate change. The question is whether that response is through expansion of government regulations or through the power of the marketplace. Republicans, who abhor the former, should embrace the latter with a revenue-­‐
neutral tax on carbon. Rather than wage a futile battle with Obama over EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases – for which the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor – the GOP could answer the president's climate challenge with a free-­‐market solution, embraced by a number of conservative economists like Art Laffer and Greg Mankiw: A revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon that gives proceeds back to consumers. Here's how it works: Place a steadily-­‐
rising tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas at the first point of sale. Start at $15 per ton of CO2 and increase the tax $10 a ton each year. As a result, the cost of energy will go up. To prevent the tax from being a drag on the economy, return the revenue to consumers, preferably as direct payments. This clear and predictable price on carbon, which begins to reflect society's true cost of fossil fuels, will motivate investors to shift away from fossil fuels and toward clean sources of energy like wind and solar. The need for government subsidies to prop up renewables will eventually disappear. The appeal for Republicans here is a solution that does not expand the size and role of government. Instead, it uses the power of the free market to solve one of civilization's greatest problems. An argument continually made against U.S. efforts to reduce CO2 emissions is that other big emitters, like China and India, will thwart our initiatives to curb greenhouse gases. If, however, a carbon tax is coupled with border adjustments on imports from countries that lack a comparable policy, we accomplish two things: •Protecting American businesses from unfair competition. •Providing a strong incentive for other nations to follow the U.S. lead (Why enrich the U.S. Treasury when they can keep carbon tax revenues in their own countries?). So, Republicans, is it going to be regulations or free market? This isn't an issue where one party has to claim victory over the other. If we succeed in saving the world, there will be plenty of credit to go around for everyone. Mark Reynolds is the executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/tax-­‐497375-­‐carbon-­‐climate.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 26 OrangeCountyRegister Reynolds OPED A climate-­‐change plan Republicans could love LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 Not in the real world Phil Robinson’s op-­‐ed claimed global warming will bring some good things. He opined that more warmth brings more precipitation brings more food. And, he said, since plants love carbon dioxide, more carbon dioxide means happier plants and more oxygen. If this were as true in the real world as it is in his high school science experiment then we should be seeing huge increases in crop production. After all, for the last century and a half we have experienced increases in both temperature and carbon dioxide levels unprecedented in the history of human existence. What, then, has happened to crop production in the real world? Crop yields are actually down globally by 2 to 3 percent. Scientists project that with every degree (C) increase in average temperature worldwide, crop yields will decline by approximately 5 percent, leading to great concern about food scarcity in the world as population increases. And while no one expects climate to be static, the best scientific research tells us that climate change is shifting ever faster toward a scenario of far more frequent and expensive extreme weather events, fires and drought across major swaths of the globe. Wasn’t it interesting that the front page story on the same day as Robinson’s opinion piece was about the ongoing water shortage in New Mexico? … Robinson’s belief that God will take care of things is not shared by all religious people. Just two days before Robinson’s op-­‐ed, a letter to the Journal detailed efforts by tens of thousands of people of many faiths across New Mexico to get policy-­‐makers to address climate change. … I share Robinson’s belief that “we should take care of the world the best we can.” But in my opinion, that requires passing legislation to curb greenhouse gasses … and repealing subsidies to carbon polluters. Heidi Topp Brooks Albuquerque WEB LINK http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2013/02/26/opinion/end-­‐of-­‐an-­‐era.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 26 ABQJournal Brooks LTE Not in the real world OPED, FEBRUARY 24, 2013 Market-­based approaches and climate change solutions
Mark Reynolds Guest Opinion A carbon tax bill that gives revenue back to households? Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s what Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-­‐Calif., placed on the table when she and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-­‐Vt., announced plans to introduce “carbon-­‐fee-­‐and-­‐dividend” legislation. Their proposal places a fee on coal, oil and natural gas at the first point of sale and then rebates a substantial part of the revenue to the public as monthly “dividends,” either by check or electronically. At a news conference to introduce the Climate Protection Act and the Energy Security Act, Boxer said her aim was to get legislation to the floor of the Senate by summer. What could possibly be better? How about Republican support? Without backing from some GOP lawmakers, their legislation stands little chance of passage in the Senate, much less the Republican-­‐controlled House. Unless it is bipartisan, any climate legislation — no matter what its intention — amounts to little more than a gesture. Given President Obama’s ultimatum to Congress to cut carbon or “I will,” the GOP has great incentive to support a “market-­‐based solution” to the climate crisis. The alternative is expansion of Environmental Protections Agency regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Efforts to block those regulations will prove to be a waste of time and energy, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other pollutants that warm the Earth. Time and again, conservatives exhort the power of the free market rather than government to make good things happen in our society. It’s time, then, for Republicans to “walk the talk” and embrace a tax on carbon that returns revenue to the public. While Obama wields the hammer that may move Republicans toward legislative action, the Boxer-­‐Sanders bills, in their current form, stand little chance of attracting support from across the aisle. The phrase that pays here is “revenue-­‐neutral,” meaning that it doesn’t increase the size of government, which is anathema to all Republicans. Here are the main provisions of the Boxer-­‐
Sanders bills: • A $20 per ton CO2 fee and equivalent fee on methane emissions, rising 5.6 percent annually. • 60 percent of the revenue will be returned by monthly as direct “dividends,” electronically or by check. • The tax is upstream — first point of sale of fossil fuel — and the bill includes border tax adjustments to protect domestic industry and induce other nations to enact carbon taxes. • 25 percent of revenue goes to general treasury for deficit reduction. • 10 percent to 15 percent will fund clean energy proposals and low-­‐income weatherization. It all sounds good until the final item, and this is where the Boxer-­‐Sanders bills become a non-­‐starter for Republicans. Conservatives are pretty clear they have no intention of increasing federal revenue and expanding the role of government. Unless it is revenue-­‐neutral — and there’s even some debate as to whether using funds to reduce the deficit makes it revenue-­‐neutral — Republicans will remain on the sidelines. What this all means is that the two warring factions in Congress will need to meet each other halfway — Republicans agreeing to a price on carbon and Democrats agreeing to make it revenue-­‐neutral. With study after study telling us the window is rapidly closing on our ability to contain climate change, our nation and our world can wait no longer for Congress to enact legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. A direct price on carbon-­‐based fuels, with revenue returned to households, is the most promising mechanism to cut those emissions. The Boxer-­‐Sanders bills deliver on this approach. Make it revenue-­‐neutral and we just might find enough Republican support to get it passed. Mark Reynolds is the executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.press-­‐citizen.com/article/20130225/OPINION02/302250012/Market-­‐based-­‐
approaches-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐solutions?nclick_check=1 CCL FILENAME 2013 02 25 IowaCityPCitizen Reynolds OPED Market-­‐based approaches and climate change solutions TRENTON, NEW JERSEY GUEST OPINION COLUMN, FEBRUARY 24, 2013 The Keystone pipeline is like a gigantic hypodermic needle stuck into America By Eliot Daley Protesters march in downtown Wichita, Kansas, as part of "Occupy Koch Town, " Saturday, February 18, 2012. The rally and march were organized by the Sierra Clubs of Kansas and Missouri and area Occupy movements. Fernando Salazar/Wichita Eagle/MCT With publications as influential and far-­‐
flung as The Washington Post, The San Diego Union-­‐Tribune and Nature magazine all having nice things to say about approval for the Keystone pipeline, who am I to offer a contrary perspective? Well, I’ll tell you: I am a recovering addict, and that makes me a vastly better authority on this matter than any of those supposed sages, because I know addiction when I see it. And I know denial when I hear it. The Keystone pipeline is like a gigantic hypodermic needle stuck into America. Its promoters know we are addicted to the wrong drug — fossil fuels — but they know we do not have the willpower to kick the habit as long as the pushers find new ways to slip us one more fix. The Keystone pipeline is just such a fix. Injected deep into this country, it would shoot massive amounts of those intoxicating but ultimately destructive drugs into American fuel tanks. Here’s the thing. Someday — someday — we have to kick the habit. Those addicted to other dangerous substances, such as drugs and alcohol and food and gambling, say that they couldn’t begin recovery until they hit “low bottom” — a point where they felt utterly ruined. We have to decide now whether we will perpetuate our addiction with fresh supplies of fossil fuels through crutches like Keystone until we hit low bottom or whether we will voluntarily begin our recovery before then. While hitting low bottom is unquestionably effective as a motivator for those individuals who survive it, not all do survive it, and there is no assurance that we as a nation or the planet we call home will survive an environmental low bottom. Consider this: There really is such a thing as a point of no return in our destruction of the environment. We as a nation are deep in denial, on the verge of becoming so self-­‐
deluded in our feckless energy consumption that one day it really could be too late. Low bottom could mean misery without end. “a worrisome de facto Canada-­‐China Forever. partnership to build a pipeline from Alberta But just imagine: If we decline a fresh fix to the British Columbia coast, where the from the Keystone pipeline, we will impel bitumen would be shipped across the Pacific.” fresh thinking and new investment to enable Set aside the fact that China will necessarily our eventual weaning away from fossil fuels go through the same stage of early-­‐industrial to abundant, clean, inexpensive sources that pollution that all developed countries have do not threaten the well-­‐being of the planet done before wising up. Let’s address that and future generations. “worrisome” partnership. Yet we all know this will not happen as Keystone alone cannot handle all the oil long as the path of least resistance is still laid shale Canadian producers want to sell, and out before us. Keystone is just such a false having served as a strategic consultant to Yellow Brick Road, leading us to the wizards TransCanada Pipeline Co. (the prospective of extractive industries’ castles where, when builder of Keystone), I can assure you that it we pull back the curtain, we find nothing but will happily lay pipe to serve any export exploitive pushers hoping not to be found out markets the producers go after. until they are settled into comfy retirement. In a mutual backscratching of the sages, a What would be lost if we deliberately San Diego Union-­‐Tribune editorial praises its refused the next injection from our pushers? colleagues at The Washington Post, who The supposed boon in job-­‐creation trumpeted presume the only reason President Obama by Keystone backers has been roundly quashed the Keystone pipeline was to “please debunked. And why not, since the would-­‐be his green base.” Perhaps it was exactly that. constructor TransCanada laughably saw fit to But since when would that be a poor reason predict Keystone “spin-­‐off” jobs, including 51 for a good decision? dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, The fact is that America’s green base is on 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 the march. In the Election Day surprise of bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 2012, some people were harshly awakened 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 by the new and permanent clout of women shampooers, 65 farmers and 1,714 and minorities. Well, just wait until they feel bartenders. the impact of America’s growing green base But still, the sages warn us in one editorial in the years and elections to come. that failure to forge ahead would “antagonize The only question is whether the editorial our longtime close ally, Canada.” Just ask pages of America will lead or delay this recovering addicts how they feel now about country’s long-­‐overdue renunciation of its having had their addiction tolerated or addiction to bad stuff. supported by spouses who were “co-­‐
Eliot Daley, a Princeton writer, is a former dependent.” If the only way to keep certain management consultant who served as a greedy Canadians from feeling antagonized is global strategy consultant to the would-­be to do the wrong thing environmentally, then builders of the Keystone pipeline during the it’s time to draw the line and set an example mid-­’90s and has coped with addiction to for them. food for a lifetime. But we are also warned that our failure to accept the Keystone needle might encourage WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/opinion_the_keystone_pipeline.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 24 TrentonTimes Daley OPED Keystone pipeline is like a giant hypodermic needle stuck into America OPED, FEBRUARY 23, 2013 GOP can be part of climate change solution By Mark Reynolds A carbon tax bill that gives revenue back to households? Now we're getting somewhere. That's what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-­‐Calif.) placed on the table when she and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-­‐Vt.) announced plans to introduce "carbon-­‐fee-­‐and-­‐dividend" legislation. Their proposal places a fee on coal, oil and natural gas at the first point of sale and then rebates a substantial part of the revenue to the public as monthly "dividends," either by check or electronically. At a recent press conference to introduce the Climate Protection Act and the Energy Security Act, Boxer said her aim was to get legislation to the floor of the Senate by summer. What could possibly be better? How about Republican support? Without backing from some GOP lawmakers, their legislation stands little chance of passage in the Senate, much less the Republican-­‐controlled House. Unless it is bipartisan, any climate legislation -­‐-­‐ no matter what its intention -­‐-­‐ amounts to little more than a gesture. Given President Obama's ultimatum to Congress to cut carbon or "I will," the GOP has great incentive to support a "market-­‐based solution" to the climate crisis. The alternative is expansion of Environmental Protections Agency regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Efforts to block those regulations will prove to be a waste of time and energy, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other pollutants that warm the Earth. Time and again, conservatives exhort the power of the free market rather than government to make good things happen in our society. It's time, then, for Republicans to "walk the talk" and embrace a tax on carbon that returns revenue to the public. Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to President George W. Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, explains the conservative rationale for a carbon tax: "Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits. That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources." While Obama wields the hammer that may It all sounds good until the final item, and move Republicans toward legislative action, this is where the Boxer-­‐Sanders bills become the Boxer-­‐Sanders bills, in their current form, a non-­‐starter for Republicans. Conservatives stand little chance of attracting support from are pretty clear they have no intention of across the aisle. The phrase that pays here is increasing federal revenue and expanding the "revenue-­‐neutral," meaning that it doesn't role of government. increase the size of government, which is With study after study telling us the anathema to all Republicans. window is rapidly closing on our ability to Here are the main provisions of the Boxer-­‐
contain climate change, our nation and our Sanders bills: world can wait no longer for Congress to A $20 per ton, CO2 fee and equivalent fee enact legislation that reduces greenhouse gas on methane emissions, rising emissions. 5.6 percent annually. A direct price on carbon-­‐based fuels, with Sixty percent of the revenue will be revenue returned to households, is the most returned by monthly as direct promising mechanism to cut those emissions. "dividends," electronically or by check. The Boxer-­‐Sanders bills deliver on this The tax is upstream -­‐-­‐ first point of sale approach. Make it revenue-­‐neutral and we of fossil fuel -­‐-­‐ and the bill includes border tax just might find enough Republican support to adjustments to protect domestic industry and get it passed. induce other nations to enact carbon taxes. Mark Reynolds, of Coronado, Calif., is Twenty five percent of revenue goes to the executive director of Citizens general treasury for deficit reduction. Climate Lobby. Ten to 15 percent will fund clean energy proposals and low-­‐income weatherization. WEB LINK http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-­‐opinions/ci_22648948/gop-­‐can-­‐be-­‐part-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
solution?IADID=Search-­‐www.dailycamera.com-­‐www.dailycamera.com CCL FILENAME 2013 02 23 DailyCamera Reynolds OPED GOP can be part of climate change solution YORK, PENNSYLVANIA OPED, FEBRUARY 22, 2013 Congress must act now on climate change I have to admit, State of the Union speeches aren't overly interesting to me. They always seem to be about an hour of clapping and about 10 minutes of speech. To me, this past State of the Union address however, felt different. I was excited to say the least. After another year of climate extremes -­‐-­‐ 2012 the warmest year on record in the U.S. by a full degree, SuperStorm Sandy destroying the New Jersey and New York coastlines, a mega-­‐
drought in the Midwest affecting our food supplies and costing our economy $75 billion to $150 billion in damages -­‐-­‐ action on climate change now seems imminent. Some insiders say Sandy was the cause of this newly lit fire under the president to act on climate change. Whatever the reason, action is what we desperately need. In his speech the president said, "If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will." One tool the president has to act on climate change is EPA regulations. Luckily, Republicans who wish to avoid more regulations can embrace a free-­‐market approach to addressing climate change: a steadily-­‐rising, revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. The concept behind a carbon tax is simple. The polluter pays. There are many hidden costs to society that the fossil fuels industry should be paying for: taxpayer funded military protections for overseas oil supplies, healthcare costs from air and water pollution, costs of damages from and adaptation to climate change, to name a few. A carbon tax would begin to address these hidden costs and level the playing field between clean energy and fossil fuels. Making the tax steadily rising would send a price signal to the market to shift investment toward clean energy, lowering the costs to consumers. A carbon tax could be placed on carbon-­‐based fuels at the first point of sale -­‐-­‐ the wellhead, mine or port of entry. The tax would be on the amount of CO2 emitted by each fuel when burned. Coal would be taxed most heavily -­‐-­‐ as it is the dirtiest fuel source -­‐-­‐ and natural gas the least. One hundred percent of the revenue collected could be returned equally to every household, making the tax revenue-­‐
neutral. A border tax adjustment placed on imported goods coming from countries without similar carbon pricing would protect U.S. manufacturers from being undercut by these countries. This negates the Republican argument that we should not act because other countries are not acting. A border tax adjustment would encourage countries like China to implement a carbon tax of their own to keep their money in their own treasuries rather than paying it out to the U.S. in border taxes. EPA regulations would do nothing to encourage other countries to reduce their own emissions, yet another reason to enact a carbon tax instead. A carbon tax has the support of many conservative economists. Greg Mankiw, who was economic advisor to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, had this to say about a carbon tax: "Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits. That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources." Art Laffer, President Reagan's economic advisor has said, "By eliminating subsidies for all fuel types and making all fuel types accountable for their costs, free enterprise will make clear the best fuels for our future. Reduce taxes on something we want more of -­‐
-­‐ income -­‐-­‐ and tax something we arguably want less of -­‐-­‐ carbon pollution. It's a win-­‐
win." Returning all of the revenue back to every household would protect consumers from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon tax. At the same time, these rising costs influence consumer choices, like making homes more energy efficient or purchasing vehicles that are more fuel efficient. It no longer makes sense to dig stuff up and burn it for energy. A study from Mark Jacobson of Stanford University showed that the world can be powered by 100 percent clean, renewable energy in as little as 20 years, using technology available back in 2009, for roughly the same cost of fossil fuels. One of the benefits of the plan is that converting to clean energy would reduce global power demand by 30 percent because it involves converting combustion processes to electrical or hydrogen fuel cell processes. Electricity is much more efficient than combustion. The president has laid it out for Congress; business as usual is no longer acceptable. Congress can have a guiding hand in the transition to a clean energy economy using a free-­‐market approach that will strengthen our economy. One thing is clear, the planet is not waiting for action on climate change, and neither should our children. Jon Clark is the group leader for the York chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.yorkdispatch.com/viewpoints/ci_22636594/op-­‐ed-­‐congress-­‐must-­‐act-­‐now-­‐
climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 02 22 YorkDispatch Clark OPED Congress must act now on climate change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 22, 2013 Fight and Defeat Climate Change The president got it right in his state of the revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax to provide a price union speech: climate change must be taken signal for changing our energy-­‐use behavior. seriously and immediate steps must be taken Let’s be visionary, bold and courageous, as to defuse the problem. Americans have always been, and reduce our As numerous U-­‐T San Diego articles about carbon emissions dramatically now while weather anomalies have demonstrated, we creating a beautiful green America. The are at a turning point: either we get in sync “Greatest Generation” isn’t gone, it’s with nature’s systems, or we may sink. reincarnating now and doing what is Climate change is foremost among the necessary to face up to the challenges of challenges that we must solve. human caused climate change. If we support solar and wind power, we We are can-­‐do Americans, doing what is cannot only wean ourselves from our deadly right. We will face, fight and defeat climate fossil fuel addiction, but also we can make the change. United States more energy-­‐independent, safe Douglas Hansen and prosperous. Another key component in Carlsbad this process is the implementation of a WEB LINK http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/22/tp-­‐letters-­‐north-­‐county-­‐feb-­‐22-­‐
2013/?page=3#article-­‐copy CCL FILENAME 2013 02 22 UTSanDiego Hansen LTE Fight and defeat climate change TRENTON, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 22, 2013 Already paying the price for burning fossil fuels I would like to follow up on Ellie Whitney’s excellent op-­‐ed commentary “Carbon fee would put the brakes on global warming” (Feb.7) with a couple of observations. When people see the word “fee” or “tax,” they often respond reflexively that we, as citizens, will pay more for gas and heating oil – and they overlook the reality that we are already paying a fortune for our failure to reduce carbon emissions. These costs will continue to rise unless we impose a carbon fee and curb emissions of CO² immediately. The drought that struck the West last year has, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , already cut our GDP by almost 1 percent, with the U.S. economy taking a hit of $105 billion, and it shows every sign of continuing. In 2008, historic flooding in the Midwest cost $8 billion, Hurricane Katrina $108 billion, Hurricane Irene $15 billion, and Hurricane Sandy at least $50 billion. So, in reality, we are already paying carbon fees as extreme weather-­‐related catastrophes pile up around us. And the burden is not only the dollar amount — it’s equally the price to millions of people trying to rebuild their lives and businesses, a price that is incalculable. Sarita Cooke Garner, East Windsor The writer is a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_620.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 22 TrentonTimes Garner LTE Already paying the price for burning fossil fuels NEWARK, NEW JERSEY EDITORIAL, FEBRUARY 22, 2013
Editorial: Climate change costs are hitting home By Star-­Ledger Editorial Board Art Orticelle of PSE&G shows on Wednesday
10/31/12 the Passaic River waters rose to at the
Essex switching station under the Turnpike
during Hurricane Sandy. Star-Ledger
PSE&G wants to spend a staggering $4 billion over the next decade to harden its electric and gas systems against the impact of severe storms like Sandy and Irene, a sum that works out to about $500 per person in New Jersey. “This is a cost of climate change, pure and simple,” says Jeanne Fox, a commissioner on the Board of Public Utilities, which oversees the utilities. It’s a pity we cannot send the entire bill to the flat-­‐earthers who are willfully deaf to the chorus of warnings from the world’s most respected scientists. By blocking political action on climate change, even now, they are driving up the costs of coping. It is too early to judge the merits of PSE&G’s plan, but the company’s task is enormous. Nearly half the money would be devoted to hardening switching stations and substations that were flooded during the recent storms by elevating them, protecting them or relocating them. The company also wants to modernize low-­‐pressure gas mains, deploy smart grid technologies to help speed repairs, and bury electrical lines along about 20 miles of the most critical routes. Yes, with a guaranteed return on investment of just more than 10 percent, utilities have an incentive to inflate these tasks. Ratepayer advocate Stephanie Brand said PSE&G’s request seems overblown, at least at first blush. Still, the need to harden the system is beyond doubt, and the timing is excellent. Low interest rates should keep down costs, the jobs are sorely needed, and with electric and gas rates dropping over the past few years, the impact on ratepayers may be slightly less painful. PSE&G puts the net cost at about $8 per month. Yesterday, JCP&L, the state’s second-­‐
largest utility, said it intends to spend $200 million per year for the same purpose. Count that as cost of climate change, too — along with the enormous expense of elevating homes along the Shore, restoring the beaches and repairing highways. Yes, we have always had storms, droughts and floods. But the pace and severity are setting records across the globe, just as the scientists predicted. To ignore that growing risk is reckless. And expensive. WEB LINK http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/02/climate_change_costs_are_hitti.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 22 NewarkStarLedger Ed Board EDITORIAL Climate change costs are hitting home WICHITA, KANSAS OPED, FEBRUARY 21, 2013 Want EPA or free market to tackle carbon?
By Rebecca Ryan
Rebecca Ryan In his State of the Union address, President Obama challenged our nation to combat climate change “for the sake of our children and our future.” Lacking a “market-­‐based solution” from Congress, the president intends to take action on his own, which likely will involve expansion of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on power plants. Republican lawmakers who find that unsuitable should consider backing a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon. Climate scientists around the world are in wide agreement that human reliance on fossil-­‐based fuels is at the root of ever-­‐
increasing levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. These rising CO2 levels play a significant role in heating up our world, which increases the frequency and severity of the extreme weather we have witnessed in recent years. There is indeed a “new normal.” The ramifications for this include more events like the devastating drought currently gripping this part of the country, and more frequent and intense storms like the tornado that destroyed Joplin. We have an opportunity to come together and craft a solution that not only addresses the threat of climate change but also provides much-­‐needed economic stimulus. The right solution can set the stage for America to once again act in the capacity of a global leader while keeping the size of government small. A steadily increasing, revenue-­‐neutral fee levied on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas could be just the solution we need. Such a fee would engage the power of our free-­‐market economy to speed the transition to clean energy and reduce greenhouse emissions. Returning proceeds of the fee to American households would shield consumers from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee. Applying the fee in predictable increments would provide the necessary stability and price signal to motivate a shift in private investment to clean sources of energy. Entrepreneurs could exercise their ingenuity in developing new sources of energy. This in turn would result in new jobs. The real beauty of such a carbon fee is that it would not grow the size of government by requiring new regulations. Instead, it would leverage the power of our free-­‐market economy to effect the changes necessary to move us off carbon-­‐based fuels in a gradual, predictable manner. It is more of a carrot and less of a stick. If we couple such a revenue-­‐neutral fee with tariffs at our borders, imposed on goods from nations lacking similar carbon-­‐pricing schemes, we also would provide incentives for other nations to initiate policies to limit greenhouse emissions. This would go a long way toward solving a global problem, and cast America in the role of a true global leader. If we act now, we can move ahead of China, Germany and other nations currently sitting atop the green economy. We want to lead here, not follow. It is time to demand that Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-­‐Wichita, and Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran take action on this issue. New markets and new industries are waiting for us to develop. Let’s get busy, get educated and reach across the aisle to our fellow citizens who all want the best for this country. Let’s put our heads together and engage the power of all that makes America great to solve this daunting problem. Rebecca Ryan of Lawrence is a volunteer with the Kansas chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.kansas.com/2013/02/21/2684003/rebecca-­‐ryan-­‐want-­‐epa-­‐or-­‐free.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 21 WichitaEagle Ryan OPED Want EPA or free market to tackle carbon ST. LOUIS POST-­DISPATCH COLUMN, FEBRUARY 21, 2013 Where are we going with climate change? Print Email Mitch Johnson, from Aschinger Electric, connects wiring on solar panels being installed on the roof of U.S. Bank branch in Clayton on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012. The roof has 105 solar panels expected to produce about 35,000 kilowatts a year of energy. Photo by David Carson, dcarson@post-­dispatch.com I’m concerned about climate change. And I’m really concerned what the changing climate is going to be like for my children and grandchildren. A draft of the National Climate Assessment Report 2013 indicates that by about 2030, the temperature will be up by about 1.5 degrees on average. The number one driver of climate change is fossil fuel emissions. And by 2100 we could be up by an average of 8 degrees — depending on emissions. With this average temperature increase, we will see more extreme high temperatures and extreme rain events. An as usual model” of operating has now increase in temperature means more bumped up against the “climate change evaporation, humidity and potential for projection models.” James Hansen, NASA larger, stronger rain events. scientist, said in his 2012TED.com video that Now those projections sound a little worse we will have to reduce emissions by 6 percent than the ending of the Maya calendar that was per year to avoid the tipping point. The scaring people. It’s happening a little faster tipping point is when the planet continues to than the shifting of the continents that could warm each year from non-­‐human feedback put the U.S. at the South Pole in a billion loops. An example of a feedback loop is the years. But rarely do you hear about the albedo effect of melted polar ice. drivers and projections of climate change. I’ve If anyone wants to learn or do more, start written to radio and TV station managers. No with the Climate Assessment Report response. on globalchange.gov. It is as exciting as any Maybe our elected officials are concerned textbook. Join the Sierra Club and Citizens with climate change and where we are Climate Lobby. Share in Jeremy Rifkin’s, heading. My U.S. representative, Blaine Amory Lovins’ and many others’ vision for Luetkemeyer, promotes an “All of the Above unleashing renewable energy and obtaining Energy Policy.” Sounds like a haphazard true energy independence as most of our approach to avoid the worst of climate energy would be made on our own rooftops change. and in our communities. Investing in I’ve told my friends and family about the renewable energy would create more jobs trajectory of climate change. My brother said and businesses than fossil fuels. that carbon dioxide makes great plant food. A WWII-­‐like effort would take place. A My brother-­‐in-­‐law thought the cloud effect consumer-­‐friendly carbon fee and rebate was not studied enough. My mom says you would be the catalyst for that vision. The fee can’t change people. They will always buy the would be assessed on a few hundred fossil cheapest. My friend says you can’t trust fuel producers. The rebate would be the same scientists. Another friend says solar panels amount for each person. The fee would look ugly and windmills hurt the birds. My increase over the years, thereby encouraging husband says the turkey and deer hunting consumers to switch to renewable energy. seasons have been messed up by the changed Investors would be more certain of a return. seasons. Economies of scale would take place. A I wrote my pension fund, MOSERS, asking carbon fee would be imposed on imported them to divest fossil fuels. I got a nice letter items. The fee would reach across the globe back saying the pension has one and encourage our trading partners to reduce responsibility only and that is to get their carbon emissions or be priced out of our maximum return. market. On the other hand, inaction would I am writing this commentary, hoping that lead to an increasingly uncertain world. others will join me in concern for our Juli Viel of O’Fallon is an auditor for children’s future. Some websites would lead the state of Missouri. She has an M.A. you to believe it’s too expensive to get on a degree in public administration from fast track to reduce fossil fuel emissions and the University of Missouri-­Columbia invest in renewable energy. But for me, I and is a member of the St. Louis would do anything in my power to get us on chapter, Citizens Climate Lobby.
the safest trajectory possible. The “business WEB LINK http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/where-­‐are-­‐we-­‐going-­‐with-­‐climate-­‐
change/article_8938313a-­‐5733-­‐59b5-­‐a4e5-­‐688dfd2df2ac.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 21 StLPostDispatch Viel COLUMN Where are we going with climate change SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 21, 2013 Taxing carbon In his state of the union message, President Barack Obama said: “For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.” We should answer the challenge with the market-­‐based solution of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. Between the record heat and numerous climate-­‐related disasters that unfolded in 2012, it's clear that our nation must take steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming up our planet. Lacking a legislative solution, the president has said he will be forced to turn to regulation. It is time for Republicans, who abhor regulation, to embrace a climate bill that relies on a carbon fee to discourage the continued increase of burning carbon-­‐based fuels. Many conservative economists support a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, including Arthur Laffer, an economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan,and Greg Mankiw, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush. Returning the revenue from a carbon tax to consumers would speed the transition to clean energy without inflicting economic pain on American households. Border adjustment tariffs on goods from other nations that don't price carbon can protect American businesses and give other countries an incentive to follow our lead. The time is now for Congress to create a workable legislative solution to runaway global warming. Joy Lonnes Santa Rosa WEB LINK http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130221/OPINION/130229898/1044/opinion02?p=2&tc=pg CCL FILENAME 2013 02 21 PressDemocrat Lonnes LTE Taxing carbon COLUMN, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 Time to address global warming By Doug Bell. Community Press guest columnist Drought and fires in 2011 cost Texas over $5.5 billion. That same year, a drought-­‐
induced fire in Oakland cost the city $1.5 billion. The drought of 2012 cost our national economy between $75 billion and $150 billion. This is the cost of global warming. It’s just beginning and it will get worse. The debate over the reality of global warming is over. Since 1991, 13,950 peer-­‐
reviewed climate articles have been written, of which only 24 rejected global warming. The only remaining debate is a fake one, manufactured by the oil and coal industries. Even the premier climate skeptic Richard Muller, funded by the Koch brothers, now agrees that global warming is real and man-­‐
made. It’s time for solutions. The best overall plan is to enact a revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee. This would be assessed on each ton of carbon whenever fossil fuels are drilled, mined or imported. For example, the fee would be assessed on an oil company when it produces enough oil that when burned, would create a ton of carbon dioxide. This would make coal, oil, and natural gas slightly more expensive. The fee would then be offset, and made revenue-­‐neutral, by returning the revenue to taxpayers. This offset could be achieved using any of a variety of methods, e.g. by reducing other taxes or with a rebate. By returning the fee revenue to taxpayers, the cost to our overall economy would be zero. Enacting a revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee would help America move to a clean economy, one where we pollute less, waste less,and use more clean renewable energy. It would also create millions of new jobs throughout America. One argument against this that you may hear is that “cheap” coal, oil, and natural gas are good for the economy. Actually, they aren’t cheap at all, even if one ignores the onrushing costs of global warming. Other costs of their pollution are asthma, heart attacks, strokes, several types of cancer, and abnormal brain development in fetuses and breast-­‐feeding babies. All of that is far more costly than any carbon fee. We have a moral responsibility to future Doug Bell is a resident of Kenwood and generations, an obligation to pass on to them a volunteer with several the same life our parents gave to us. A environmental organizations. revenue-­‐neutral carbon-­‐fee is the best way to fulfill our obligation. WEB LINK http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20130220/EDIT02/302200133/&nclick_check
=1 CCL FILENAME 2013 02 20 CincinnatiEnquirer Bell COLUMN Time to address global warming HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 19, 2013 It's time to confront climate change In his State of the Union address, President before it is too late. Energy conservation and Obama said “... for the sake of our children efficiency are key and should be a priority. and our future, we must do more to combat President Obama is also “urging Congress climate change.” to pursue a bipartisan, market-­‐based solution He said, we can choose to believe that to climate change.” The time is right for a recent severe storms, droughts and wildfires revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, which will allow “... were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can a market-­‐based transition from fossil fuels to choose to believe in the overwhelming clean energy sources. judgment of science and act before it’s too Our legislators need to hear from us now; late.” it is up to us to make it happen. The majority of Americans do think that Rachel Mark climate change is real and we should act Derry Township WEB LINK http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2013/02/letters_its_time_to_confront_c.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 19 PatriotNews Mark LTE Its time to confront climate change RACINE, WISCONSIN OP-­ED, FEBRUARY 19, 3013 Commentary—Tackling climate change By Ross Astoria Since his re-­‐election, President Barack Obama has finally become serious about humanity’s most threatening problem: human-­‐made global warming. The overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists is that the human emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the average temperature on the earth at a very rapid rate. If we continue to emit carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere at present rates, the average temperature of the earth will increase up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit before the end of the century, and possibly sooner. Our forests and our system of agriculture are unlikely to be able to adapt to such large changes. The forest will die off and burn up (as is now happening with the pine forests of the West). Crop yields will drop precariously. Heat waves will intensify and become more frequent, endangering the lives of all, but especially the elderly. Hurricanes will become more intense and costly. The nation’s infrastructure is built to withstand certain climatic and weather tolerances. The new climate will exceed those tolerances. Debt reduction, economic growth, access to education, national security and material prosperity will be nearly impossible in our new, warmer world. We can avoid these consequences, and to do so we need to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 80% before 2050. In his state of the union address, the President indicated a commitment to beginning those reductions and asked Congress to send him a “bi-­‐partisan, market-­‐
based solution to climate change.” He also said that “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will” and announced that he would direct his cabinet to prepare executive actions that will “reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequence of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” The president does have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide pollution under the Clean Air Act, but there’s a better way to get the job done: a steadily increasing tax on carbon pollution that returns revenues to households. To prevent American manufacturing from moving to a foreign jurisdiction, the carbon tax should come with a “border tax adjustment” which places a tariff on any materials imported from a jurisdiction that lacks a price on carbon pollution. Under this legislation (called fee-­‐
and-­‐dividend), private investment will be channeled into deploying the low-­‐carbon technologies of the future, such as energy efficiency, solar and wind. All of these industries are growing and are poised to grow even more, were fee-­‐and-­‐dividend to become law. Southeastern Wisconsin, with its unutilized manufacturing capacity, is well positioned to benefit from these industries. Fee-­‐and-­‐dividend cannot be implemented by executive action: Congressional legislation is required, and so Republicans, who control the House, have a choice. They can allow President Obama to lead the nation in solving climate change and spurring the transition to a clean energy economy or they can propose alternative (and more effective) legislation. Both parties are interested in comprehensive reform of the tax code and Rep. Ryan, as chair of the Budget Committee and a member of Ways and Means, will be influential in developing those reforms. He should go bold, and champion a carbon tax as a part of tax reform: tax something you want less of (carbon pollution) and return the revenues to households. The longer we delay, the more costly it will become to prevent a dangerous and uncontrollable climate change. History will remember this president and this Congress for what it did or did not do to preserve a stable climate. They can be remembered for having overcome their differences and passed the legislation required to reduce emissions of carbon pollution, or for having squabbled away the chance to transition to a reliable, safe, clean energy economy. U.S. Rep. Ryan, President Obama, go bold with a carbon tax and get this job done. Ross Astoria is the group leader for the Racine-­Kenosha Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. He can be reached at [email protected]. WEB LINK http://journaltimes.com/news/local/commentary-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐tackling-­‐climate-­‐
change/article_465b09bc-­‐7af3-­‐11e2-­‐9e69-­‐001a4bcf887a.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 19 JournalTimes Astoria OPED Commentary—Tackling climate change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Tweaking the carbon tax Regarding "Obama's bold agenda offers regulatory Band-­‐Aids that directly subsidize little room for compromise" (Page A1, or mandate efficiency or renewable energy Wednesday), in his State of the Union initiatives. While these can be effective, they address, President Obama joined virtually are neither economically efficient nor every major business, government and sufficiently broad. religion by acknowledging that climate So, is there a viable alternative? change is occurring, is anthropogenic, and is Fortunately, yes: a revenue-­‐neutral carbon worthy of a policy response. tax. This simple approach taxes carbon Though climate policy has been slow due sources at a fixed rate based on their to congressional gridlock and residual climate greenhouse gas potentials, then evenly denial, the greatest hurdle has been a lack of distributes the revenue back to taxpayers. good policy proposals. Most folks have The carbon tax rate adjusts over time to seek focused on cap-­‐and-­‐trade, which caps the most cost-­‐effective balance between emissions then sells carbon credits on an reducing emissions today and reducing their open market. Though comprehensive, this impacts tomorrow. This approach is simple, approach introduces price uncertainty and is predictable and difficult to game. riddled with complexities, unavoidable Peter Bryn loopholes and high implementation costs. Houston Then there are a number of well-­‐meaning WEB LINK http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-­‐Carbon-­‐tax-­‐books-­‐human-­‐kindness-­‐
4283427.php CCL FILENAME 2013 02 19 HoustonChronicle Bryn LTE Tweaking the carbon tax EDITORIAL, FEBRUARY 19, 2013 Self interest It's in everyone's self interest to address Last week, California Sen. Barbara Boxer climate change, but Floridians have more at introduced a measure to tax carbon and stake than residents of the rest of the country. methane emissions linked to climate change. Much of the state's population is Her plan would direct 60 percent of the concentrated on coasts that are particularly revenue to rebates for utility customers vulnerable to rising sea levels. Powerful unable to afford higher rates. The rest would storms can also devastate those areas along fund energy-­‐efficiency projects and with other parts of the state. renewable energy initiatives. Sea levels are projected to rise three to The idea makes a lot of sense. The price of seven inches by 2030 and nine to 24 inches electricity should reflect the environmental by 2060 based on current trends, according costs of its production. And in an era of to the work of four South Florida counties budget austerity, a carbon tax has the that was reported in the Miami Herald. A two-­‐
potential to fund needed research in foot rise would put 28 percent of South alternative energy. Florida underwater. Unfortunately, her plan is likely going Gainesville's inland location means it nowhere in a Congress filled with climate-­‐
would be spared the direct impact of sea-­‐level change deniers. President Obama recognized rise, although it would certainly suffer other this reality in last week's State of the Union consequences. And as the 2004 hurricanes address, saying that he would act if Congress showed, the region can also feel the effects of didn't. Last weekend, thousands of activists major storms. marched on Washington to urge Obama to Local residents have another reason to make good on his promise. hope that the federal government addresses We hope that the president follows the manmade emissions that are changing the through and takes executive action to address climate. Later this year, Gainesville's wood-­‐
climate change. For all the criticism of the fueled biomass plant comes online. biomass plant, it made environmental sense Part of the rationale for the plant was the for city commissioners to choose a expectation that by time it started operation, renewable, locally produced fuel source. It the federal government would have would be nice if the community received regulations in place that rewarded renewable economic benefits for its foresight. energy production and penalized the use of More importantly, it would mean that the fossil fuels. That hasn't happened, so electric government is finally getting serious about rates are now expected to be higher than if climate change before it's too late to have any another type of plant was built. meaningful impact. WEB LINK http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130219/OPINION01/130219580?p=2&tc=pg NEWS ITEM, FEBRUARY 17, 2013 Crowd marches to voice opposition to Keystone pipeline By Steven Mufson Thousands rally on Mall over climate: Several thousand people gathered on the Mall for the “Forward on Climate” rally. A crowd that organizers said numbered approximately 35,000 braved the cold on Sunday and marched to urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline and to show leadership on other climate issues they called urgent. The group rallied on a slice of the Mall just north of the Washington Monument before heading down Constitution Avenue, up 17th Street and past the White House chanting slogans such as “We are unstoppable, another world is possible” and “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Keystone pipeline’s got to go.” The president wasn’t home, however. He was in Florida playing golf with Tiger Woods and Jim Crane, a Houston businessman who owns the Houston Astros as well as the residential compound where Obama is spending the holiday weekend. But the demonstrators tried to send him a message nonetheless, carrying signs opposing not only the proposed pipeline from Canada to Texas, but also opposing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and coal plants. “Windmills, not oil spills,” one placard said. Another said, “Fossil fuels? Fossil fools.” And another: “Read my lips: no new carbons.” Leaders of the rally said they wanted to press Obama to follow up on the strong rhetoric in his inaugural address about the need to slow climate change. The official posters at the rally borrowed Obama’s campaign slogan “forward.” They read: “Mr. President, Forward — on Climate.” “Mr. President, we have heard what you’ve said on climate; we have loved a lot of what you’ve said on climate,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Our question is: What will you do?” For many of the rally leaders, the first test will be whether the president and Secretary of State John F. Kerry approve a construction permit for the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude from the oil or tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The energy-­‐intensive methods needed to extract that crude emit more greenhouse gases than oil production methods from conventional reservoirs. “Mr. President, you hold the pen and the as usual because we use fossil fuels. But the executive power of hope in your hands,” time for business as usual has passed.” Brune said. “Take out that pen, Mr. President, Afterward, Whitehouse said that “if the and write down the words ‘I reject the president and Secretary Kerry choose to Keystone XL pipeline.’ ” approve the pipeline and proceed, there will Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-­‐R.I.) told be a massive credibility gap between that and members of the crowd that they could help what he said in the inauguration, especially if encourage Obama. “We are going to have the this is the first deed out of the box. That will president’s back and he is going to have our be a problem for him.” back,” Whitehouse said, adding that “We are Many of the demonstrators were college going to look at our grandchildren and say students who had traveled for hours by bus to ‘Yes, we did.’ ” take part in the rally. But the rally had an edge of uncertainty Meghan Stratton, a student at the State about how hard Obama will push to take University of New York at Binghamton, held a legislative or executive action. And most of sign saying, “Tell Gov. Cuomo Don’t Frack the speakers zeroed in on the impending New York.” She had traveled five hours by bus Keystone XL decision. with other students. Those speakers included Bill McKibben, a “You can’t ignore what’s happening to our Middlebury College professor who has led the planet, and we want the president to know fight to stop the pipeline; two leaders of First we’re thinking about it,” she said. Nation tribes in Canada; and Tom Steyer, an Ellie Whitney, a retired biologist active in a investment fund manager in California and group called Citizens Climate Lobby, had major fundraiser for Obama. All are strong traveled by bus from New Jersey and carried foes of the Keystone project. a sign that said, “Read my lips: no new “If this pipeline goes through, your carbons.” government will help in the raping and There was also a contingent from the pillaging of the land of my ancestors,” said Occupy Wall Street movement. They marched Chrystal Lameman, a member of the Beaver behind a long banner that read, “Occupy Wall Lake Cree Nation in Canada. “Then [the Street, Stop Keystone.” Some dressed as grim companies] promise to give back what was reapers, including one carrying a paper never theirs in the first place.” scythe with the words “tar sands.” Said Steyer: “I get the argument for the Keystone. The argument is that it is business WEB LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/thousands-­‐rally-­‐on-­‐mall-­‐over-­‐
climate/2013/02/17/7fb86be6-­‐794a-­‐11e2-­‐9a75-­‐dab0201670da_gallery.html#photo=1 CCL FILENAME 2013 02 17 WashPost Mufson NEWS Crowd marches to voice opposition to Keystone pipeline LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 16, 2013 Our moon shot In 1961, President John Kennedy astounded the public by vowing to land an American on the moon "before this decade is out." Although the Russians were ahead in the space race at the time, we got there first in less than nine years. Facing the climate challenge, the Chinese and Germans have invested heavily in wind and solar power. Again, we need to come from behind. Again, our president has called for drastic action. The space race didn’t simply get us to the moon; it triggered research, development and enterprise on many fronts. Our society and economy changed, becoming much stronger. We led the world in scientific and technological innovation. Now we have another, very different shot at greatness: to fundamentally reshape the way we get and use energy. To move decisively, we need to phase out fossil fuels as much as possible, rather than dig and drill to get at the last, difficult to extract reserves. We also need to see ourselves as we did not long ago: ready to think big, work bold, build new and thrive. Robert Speiser Salt Lake City WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55824569-­‐82/moon-­‐american-­‐president-­‐race.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 02 16 SaltLakeTribune Speiser LTE Our moon shot NEWARK, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 Weather report I thank staff writer Stephen Stirling for so As a result, storms more frequently pour clearly explaining how our big snowstorm frigid air into our region. And now that sea-­‐
came to be (“An unusual blast that’s nastier surface temperatures are significantly than the sum of its parts,” Feb. 9). warmer than in the past, air blowing in over Do your readers recognize that global the land carries much more rain — or, in this warming is implicated in the making of both case, snow. types of storms? The Union of Concerned Please join me in urging Congress to pass Scientists has explained that because the legislation, in this session, to curb the carbon Arctic is warming, the tight loop of air dioxide emissions that are causing global circulation that used to confine frigid air to warming. the pole (the “polar vortex”) has become Ellie Whitney unstable. East Windsor WEB LINK http://blog.nj.com/ledgerletters/2013/02/letters_ashbritt_the_cost_of_w.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 12 NewarkStarLedger Whitney E LTE Weather report SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 10, 2013 Time for climate action Today I read that the worst drought in 50 years made two Utah counties eligible for disaster assistance. The Utah Department of Agriculture can now also start addressing climate change. Today I read that the worst drought in 50 years made two Utah counties eligible for disaster assistance. The Utah Department of Agriculture can now also start addressing climate change. This legal action was submitted to seven state agencies two years ago to collaborate and develop long-­‐range plans for addressing climate change. However, it was denied by all agencies because they feared backlash from cuts in funding and limitations of power by the Legislature, which did not allow them to address climate change. On Monday the House Natural Resources Committee voted 11-­‐4 in a ruling that one state agency already is making and can make those plans. By stating that House Bill 77 is not necessary because the agency is already using climate science in its fire pre-­‐
suppression strategies, all the other agencies now have the green light they were looking for. We aren't the only place in the world feeling current impacts from climate change, and I think this courageous move by our Legislature sends the message to Utah Congressional leaders that a carbon fee and dividend legislation is in order. Ryan Pleune, Salt Lake City WEB LINK http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765622230/Time-­‐for-­‐climate-­‐action.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 10 DeseretNews Pleune LTE Time for climate action TRENTON, N.J. OPED, FEBRUARY 7, 2013 Carbon fee would put the brakes on global warming before it's too late By Ellie Whitney Times of Trenton guest opinion column
Antarctic SOS: A Global Green/Green Cross delegation including researchers, business leaders and representatives of 13 nations scaled an iceberg to deliver a message about climate change. Image produced in the Gerlache Strait, in the Antarctic peninsula by John Quigley of Spectral Q, and shot by photographer and Global Green board member Sebastian Copeland. file photo “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path toward sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.” –President Obama, Inaugural address, Jan. 21, 2013 The year 2012 saw more than 34,000 U.S. heat records shattered, violent western wildfires, widespread drought, record melting of Arctic ice and many devastating storms — all consequences of a rise in global heat of less than 1 degree Celsius over the past 100 years. One degree. It sounds like so little — yet, suddenly, we are caught up in a major emergency. Suddenly, the Earth is embraced by an atmosphere laden with nearly 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2), a concentration higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years. The result is a maelstrom of disruptions of the global climate that threaten the stability of every human civilization and natural ecosystem, as well as enormous damage costs. Climate scientists predicted the oceans would warm and turn acidic, polar ice and permafrost would melt, sea levels would rise and extreme weather events would become ever more violent and frequent. But no one foresaw how rapidly these changes would take place. Participants at international conferences over the last 10 years agreed that, to avert catastrophe, we must keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius, but now we realize that two degrees was too high a limit. All of the science done in the last 15 years has shown that the predicted changes are happening at lower temperatures. The climate is more sensitive than anyone realized and the real threshold of safety is 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is no longer attainable. We also failed to appreciate the long delay before the planet’s temperature responds to a rise in atmospheric CO2. It is the CO2 accumulated during the last half-­‐century that is causing the planetary fever we are now experiencing. The CO2 we are now accumulating will produce a further rise over the next half-­‐century. Many more destructive impacts of global climate change are in the pipeline and will be delivered in the future. Even if we halted our emissions tomorrow (and we can’t), the warming to which we are already committed would precipitate at least a three-­‐degree rise. If we do nothing, we are on track for at least a six-­‐degree rise within this century — with unthinkable results. No question, then: We must take serious action — fast. And we can, thanks to the widespread belief among Americans that we must. The president is willing to lead. Gov. Christie will doubtless also lead, because he knows firsthand the price we pay for violent weather. An emergency response is warranted based on the costs alone: The International Energy Agency warns that every year we fail to begin to stabilize the climate will add an extra $500 billion to the investment required. To avoid utter devastation, CO2 emissions must stop rising no later than 2017, and thereafter fall rapidly every year. Only by mounting a major effort can we meet this challenge. Beginning right now, the U.S. Congress can enact legislation to curb the CO2 emissions that are the principal cause of global warming. The quickest, simplest, fairest and most efficient way to go is to put in place a fee-­‐and-­‐dividend system, gradually raising the prices of fossil fuels across the whole economy while protecting citizens and businesses from adverse financial impacts. Three steps are necessary. First, collect a fee from all fossil fuels at their points of entry into our economy from wells, mines, ports and pipelines. To ease the transition, let the fee rise a little each year. Second, to shield our citizens from the resulting rise in fossil-­‐fuel prices, rebate the proceeds to the American people in equal amounts per adult. No new bureaucracy is needed; the IRS can accomplish both of these steps. Third, to make foreign trade fair, require our trading partners to pay carbon fees at the border to account for the carbon dioxide emissions involved in the manufacture and transport of their goods into our country. Predictably, once this system is in place, other countries will find it to their economic advantage to adopt similar systems in order to collect the proceeds themselves. The effect is expected to be a planet-­‐wide reduction of CO2 emissions within a few years, with resultant slowing, and ultimately halting, of further climate disruption. Gov. Christie will no doubt embrace the idea of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee and encourage others in his party to do the same. Republicans can support it, because many conservative economists already endorse it and because it adopts a market approach, rather than government regulation, as a way forward. It will be a privilege to participate in this historic transformation. We will be engaging in the most important work that humankind has ever undertaken. Our descendants will point to this as the time when we began to heal the Earth. Ellie Whitney, Ph.D., has authored many books on health and the environment, served as environmental columnist for the Tallahassee Democrat and studied climate and energy issues since the 1980s. Now retired, she lives in East Windsor and volunteers for the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/opinion_carbon_fee_would_put_b.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 07 TrentonTimes Whitney OPED Carbon fee would put brakes on global warming CONNECTICUT ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND NEWS, FEBRUARY 7, 2013 Island women launch local chapter Citizens Climate Lobby now in Rhode Island By Ken Shane Last year two Jamestown women who had never met found themselves at the same conference in Washington, D.C. Alison Glassie, an English teacher at St. George’s School in Newport, and Mary Jane Sorrentino, a sustainability consultant, were attracted to the nation’s capitol by the message of the Citizens Climate Lobby, an organization that had been founded in California a year earlier. Citizens Climate Lobby is an organization with the mission to create the political will for a stable climate. The group works to empower individuals to maximize the potential of their personal and political power. The organization has 60 chapters in the United States and Canada. After returning from Washington, Glassie and Sorrentino began to discuss the idea of forming a Rhode Island chapter of the organization. According to Sorrentino, the two women had not fully committed to the idea of forming the new chapter. But soon after, something happened that made them want to do it. The women became aware of a pediatrician named Wendy Ring who was bicycling across the country from California. The reason for her trek was to spread a message about the public health issues related to climate change. The Boston chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby asked Sorrentino and Glassie if they would like to host Dr. Ring. An event was arranged on the Brown University campus and it turned out to be well attended. “I think from that, Alison and I were encouraged that we could start a group in Rhode Island,” Sorrentino said. The founder of the Boston chapter offered to come to Rhode Island to train Glassie and Sorrentino. The chapter was officially launched at the end of October. Since that time there have been meetings on the first Saturday of each month, usually at public libraries in the area. At each meeting the group listens to a national call-­‐in presented by a climate scientist or an economic expert. There is an opportunity to ask questions and interact with other chapters that are on the call. Afterwards, each chapter discusses its own business. Thus far the group has met with U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and his aide, and the women expect to have more face-­‐to-­‐face meetings with Rhode Island’s congressional delegation. An early initiative for the group is to work with the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island to inform people about the group’s support of a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend. The chapter also promotes a campaign to have members write letters to the editor of their local newspaper. “Citizens Climate Lobby likes to gather the letters together so that when they go visit members of Congress, they can point to all of the letters that have been written in support of the issue,” said Sorrentino. Although Sorrentino belongs to a number of environmental groups, she said she was attracted to the Citizens Climate Lobby because while there is a lot of work going on related to the climate change issue, there is little being done at the federal level. She cited the group’s mission of building the political will to deal with the problem. “I feel that we need federal action in a big way. As a New Englander, born and bred, climate is everything. I grew up in a family that hunted, fished, gardened and canned. To see the changing of the climate in my own lifetime is just remarkable. It’s chilling.” Glassie said that her decision to work with Citizens Climate Lobby was largely based on the organization’s flexibility. It allows members to do their best in the time that they have to devote. She said it is an approach that fits best into her life. “It’s really up to the individual members,” she said. “There is a lot of room for individual creativity and individual initiative based on what your talents are, what you’re comfortable doing, and what you have time for.” Glassie said that her support of the carbon tax, a steadily rising tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas, is based on the fact that the proposal is based on the true costs of paying for something. “It seems like a different approach to me, and one that makes sense.” Another chapter initiative that Glassie mentioned was speaking with local television meteorologists in an effort to get them to include climate-­‐change information in their weather reports. “We want to ask them to take a look at some of the local impacts that we’re seeing involving storm damage, fisheries and sea-­‐
level rise,” Glassie said. She would like to see them include it in their weather forecasts. “Even if it’s just a photograph.” WEB LINK http://www.jamestownpress.com/news/2013-­‐02-­‐
07/News/Island_women_launch_local_chapter.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 07 JamestownPress Shane NEWS Island women launch local chapter FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS OPED, FEBRUARY 7, 2013 Womack: Intolerant Of Citizens Climate Lobby By Terrah Baker Photo By Jerry Landrum Members of the Citizens Climate Lobby sit with Congressman Steve Womack’s staff member in his office on Jan. 31, after Womack left to “take an important call from Washington.” Congressman Steve Womack of the Third District of Arkansas was not happy with the group he saw before him on Jan. 31 in a meeting room in his office in Rogers. To him, they were radicals of the worst kind; spouting about climate change, a carbon tax and the economic, social and environmental dangers of the Keystone XL Pipeline. An older gentleman sitting next to him in a baggy, earth-­‐toned sweater and a 5 o’clock shadow on his face laid out detailed reports from the National Weather Service’s climate assessment and other scientific organizations on the table in front of him. “If you look at the charts, you’ll see that at the current rate of emissions…,” the man explained, and pointed to the graph. Suddenly, Congressman Womack put up his hand, sat up straight in his chair and began a defensive stance. He made it clear he wouldn’t put up with charts in his office. There would be no talk of “rhetoric” from the whole of the scientific community, Department of Defense and about 80 percent of the American population. No, no. He would only listen to himself talk. And I could tell by the blank look in his eyes — as we sat there and listened to him take over the meeting he was so kind to accept — that he had this routine down. “No taxes. No climate change. No earth-­‐toned sweaters. And no open mind for facts and possible solutions to looming problems.” (paraphrasing, but you get the idea.) His arguments consisted of frustrations with environmentalists telling him to “just shut off fossil fuels,” and with the liberals asking him to implement behavior forcing techniques, like a carbon tax or tax incentives for adopting clean (sustainable) energy. Forget that we had only agreed with him minutes earlier that our dependency on foreign oil should be gradually diminished, not just “shut off.” And that “behavior forcing” techniques are what we in America call law and order; like no littering, no dumping of harmful chemicals in bodies of water, not having 40 cats within city limits, etc. He went on to say — or rather, he went on National Guardsmen must realize his own to leave the room to “take an important call employer (the big DoD) has acknowledged from Washington” and have his intern say for climate change, its dangers and are taking him — that they feel the jury is still out on steps to curb their Carbon emissions. climate change, but Womack did support Basically, Congressman Womack could clean energy. have had the edge among his fellow In the past, I think I would have been conservative companions. He could have gone happy with this conclusion. “At least he’s down in history as the Arkansas, U.S. doing something,” I’d tell myself. I am champion in turning the GOP mindset around extremely thankful to him, as are many on the issue of climate change and of crossing Arkansans. But I saw a different side of things the isle on an extremely important issue. sitting in that room, on the side of the climate Instead, he lived up to his reputation of being lobbyists. intolerant, ignorant to science and just What I saw was a man who wasn’t in his another face on the wrong side of history. position to be educated, to help people, or to The Northwest Arkansas chapter of the push his country forward. And I don’t mean Citizens Climate Lobby group has monthly because he didn’t agree with what we were meetings where they talk by phone with there to say. I mean, because instead of dedicated members across the country listening to presented facts and making sound sharing successes, methods and setting goals arguments for or against, he was overcome for the future. While their meeting with with emotion, called us “silly” at one point Womack on Jan. 31 didn’t seem promising, and flared his hands around like a many in the group feel it’s not too late for congresschild. Womack and others to become leaders, What he would have realized if he had let instead of followers in this historic fight to us present the facts we came there to discuss, save our resources, become energy is that Yale University through the Yale independent and protect future generations Climate Change Communication project from natural, economic and social disaster. reported that a pro-­‐climate stance wins votes If you want to help lobby legislators and among democrats, independents and has little provide your talents to changing the minds of negative impact with republicans; and 82 skeptical politicians and be on the winning percent of democrats, 68 percent of end of climate change, email Shelley independents and 44 percent of republicans Buonaiuto ([email protected]) to feel the U.S. should make an effort to reduce see how you can get involved locally. global warming. And even he as an ex-­‐Army WEB LINK http://www.freeweekly.com/2013/02/07/womack-­‐intolerant-­‐of-­‐citizens-­‐climate-­‐lobby/ CCL FILENAME 2013 02 07 FreeWeekly Baker OPED Womack intolerant of Citizens Climate Lobby MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN OPED, FEBRUARY 6, 2013 Paul Ryan, go bold with carbon tax By Madeleine Para
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-­‐Wis.) has been on the road recently in an effort to help his party adjust to the reality of President Barack Obama's re-­‐election. In a speech to conservatives in Washington, D.C., last month he suggested, "We've got to offer a big, bold, positive, optimistic alternative to the president's agenda. Just being no, just being a stopgap isn't enough." Republicans have a perfect opportunity to put this idea into practice. Obama clearly intends to make climate change a priority in his second term. But without Republican cooperation, Obama will be unable to pass climate change legislation through Congress. His remaining option will be to use Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a solution much hated by the GOP. But if House Republicans under the leadership of Ryan bring forth their own legislation, they can take credit for ending congressional gridlock and become true problem-­‐solvers. Ryan should offer a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax as part of his tax reform and budget plan. This market-­‐based solution levels the playing field between clean renewable energy and fossil fuels by placing a tax on carbon directly at its source. This would be a game-­‐changer -­‐ big and bold and totally rooted in traditional conservative values by using the free market to solve the problem without adding to the size of government. The proposal works like this: Place a steadily-­‐rising tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas at the first point of sale. Start at $15 per ton of CO2, and increase the tax $10 a ton each year. As a result, the cost of energy will go up. To prevent the tax from being a drag on the economy, return the revenue to consumers, preferably as direct payments. Use border adjustments that charge a fee to countries that don't have their own carbon tax, protecting American businesses and incentivizing countries such as China and India to install their own carbon tax as a way to avoid paying ours. The predictable price signal created by the carbon tax would motivate consumers and businesses to take steps to lower their energy costs and spur a transition to a renewable energy economy. New businesses would spring up to meet the new demand, without subsidies or regulations. These new businesses will create lots of jobs. In his book "Building a Green Economy," Joseph Robertson reports that oil and natural gas directly create only 0.8 jobs per $1 million in output and coal creates 1.9 jobs/million dollars in output. By contrast, building retrofits for energy efficiency create 7.0, wind power 4.6, solar power 5.4 and biomass generation 7.4. Economists on both the left and the right agree that a carbon tax is simple, transparent and effective in lowering emissions. Republican economic advisers Arthur Laffer and Greg Mankiw support it as well as George Shultz, former secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan. And a carbon tax already has been proven to lower emissions without harming the economy in Sweden and Ireland. A recent poll by the Mellman Group found that voters prefer a carbon tax over cutting social services to reduce the deficit by a 4-­‐1 margin; 66% of Republicans supported a carbon tax in the survey and 93% of Democrats. Ryan should seize this chance to make history with a "big, bold, positive, optimistic alternative" to more EPA regulations and make a carbon tax one of his signature proposals. Madeleine Para is Midwest coordinator of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/para07-­‐2b8lpot-­‐190105601.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 06 MilwJS Para OPED Paul Ryan go bold with carbon tax OPED, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 Republicans can answer Obama's climate challenge with a market-­based solution By Kyle Crider and Mark Reynolds President Barack Obama's promise to "respond to the threat of climate change" is welcome news to a nation already reeling from the effects of global warming. Republicans can meet the president halfway with a solution that uses the marketplace, rather than government regulations, to lower greenhouse gas emissions. During his second inaugural address, Obama promised action on climate change in his second term, "knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." With the current partisan divide in Congress dimming the prospects for effective climate legislation, the administration is likely to turn to the Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate greenhouse gas emissions, extending such rules to existing coal-­‐fired power plants. But is this what Republicans -­‐-­‐ the party that eschews government regulation -­‐-­‐ really want? Rather than wage a futile battle with Obama over EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases -­‐-­‐ for which the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor -­‐-­‐ the GOP could answer the president's climate challenge with a free-­‐market solution embraced by a number of conservative economists. A regulatory approach would become unnecessary with the passage of a steadily-­‐rising tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas. A clear and predicable price on carbon would use the power of the market to speed the transition to clean energy and Climate advocacy workshop
On Feb. 23, a workshop is being held to
launch the Birmingham chapter of Citizens
Climate Lobby. Communications Director
Steve Valk will train volunteers to become
effective advocates for national policies to
address climate change. For more
information, contact Kyle Crider at
[email protected]. reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Returning revenue from the tax to households would shield consumers from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon tax. If coupled with a tariff on goods from nations that lack similar carbon pricing, the carbon tax would also achieve something unattainable through regulation: Motivation for other nations to initiate policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here's how it works: Place a slowly-­‐rising tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil and gas at the first point of sale. Start at $15 per ton of CO2 and increase the tax $10 a ton each year. As a result, the cost of energy will go up. To prevent the tax from being a drag on the economy, return the revenue to consumers, preferably as direct payments. This clear and predictable price on carbon, which begins to reflect society's true cost of fossil fuels, will motivate investors to shift away from fossil fuels and toward clean sources of energy like wind and solar. The need for government subsidies to prop up renewables will eventually disappear. The appeal for Republicans here is a solution that does not expand the size and role of government. Instead, it utilizes the power of the free market to solve one of civilization's greatest problems. Here in the U.S., our motivation to address climate change is increasingly clear. Although Hurricane Sandy is being called a climate wake-­‐up call, extreme heat kills more Americans than hurricanes-­‐-­‐and its link to global warming is much stronger. Alabama's mortality rates from extreme heat are even higher than the national average. Last year, heat-­‐related illnesses and fatalities in Alabama were added to the list of diseases required to be reported to the health department. During the summer of 2012, there were 809 heat-­‐related illnesses, such as heat stroke, and six heat-­‐related deaths reported here. The bottom line is that climate change is not something we should worry about in the future. It is something we have to address now, as it is costing us hundreds of lives in addition to billions of dollars in economic damages every year. Extreme weather is no respecter of persons or political parties. In being part of the solution, the GOP has a choice: They can let the executive branch deal with climate change through increased regulations and government incentives, or they can take the proactive approach of a market-­‐based solution with a revenue-­‐
neutral tax on carbon. Kyle Crider, MPA, is a doctoral student and sustainability professional. Mark Reynolds is the executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://blog.al.com/birmingham-­‐news-­‐
commentary/2013/02/republicans_can_answer_obamas.html CCL FILENAME 2013 02 05 BirminghamNews Crider OPED Republicans Can Answer Obama’s Climate Challenge LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2013
Conversation about Keystone (4 letters) In response to Jeffery Meyer’s commentary “ Depoliticizing Keystone to get true picture” (Jan. 31): Jeffrey Meyer accurately describes some of the disturbing technical details of tar-­‐sand exploitation. The two dismissive letters in response (Feb. 1) are off-­‐target. Investing in Keystone is not good for our economy. Superstorm Sandy was giant and costly because of climate change. Keystone would lock us into the dirtiest fuel source for decades instead of committing to clean energy now. Why would we go down that foxhole? Keystone would ensure Canada scrapes and destroys a major, untouched forest ecosystem the size of Florida. Most importantly, climatologists say full tar sands exploitation makes it impossible to stabilize climate change to avoid disastrous global damage. Indigenous and other people are fighting Canada’s attempt to exploit tar sands. Let’s hope they succeed. We need to push for an international treaty to keep all tar sands where they are – buried. John H. Reaves San Diego Jeffrey Meyer’s editorial on why the Keystone Pipeline should not be built is a good example of the trade-­‐offs we now must make to ensure our children, my six grandchildren, have a stable climate and livable planet when they are adults. It’s time for us to abandon our epidemic of short term selfish thinking and consider the long term impacts of our actions. If we had no other means of achieving job growth and energy independence then it would be a consideration. But that is not the case. We have clean, alternative sources of energy available today that we can embrace to replace fossil fuels and the jobs that would go along with it. Why on earth should we continue to ravage the earth, especially for a dirty fuel we won’t even benefit from, when responsible, nonpolluting solutions already exist? Peg Mitchell San Marcos The Boreal Forest in Alberta, Canada, is one of the most beautiful sights in the world. It is enormous. The tar sands are only 20 to 25 feet below the surface. In order to mine the tar sands, all of its trees, all of its life – the buffalo and caribou herds, the birds of North America who migrate there – are stripped off. What remains is a black, slimy, toxic wasteland. The last time I checked, a couple years ago, it was the size of France. The Keystone XL pipeline would vastly increase the size of the wasteland. Where did we human beings get the right to so wantonly destroy nature, the home that God created for us? So [I encourage the president to] veto Keystone XL. Marshall Saunders President, Citizens Climate Lobby, Coronado Regarding the counterpoints to my op-­‐ed Jan. 31, I have to say I am pleased that the public is finally conceding that mankind’s CO2 exhaust is heating our planet. However, I am disappointed in their plan to cope with what climate scientists are calling a “catastrophic” series of events on our horizon due to global warming. While some of us are trying to come up with ideas to deal with this problem, their solution appears to be sticking their hands in their pockets. There are no easy answers and there is no science that is going to somehow magically turn our CO2 emissions around. We have to develop a strategy, like an import carbon tariff as a punitive weapon to force other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions. We need to get our best and brightest minds on this now before it is too late. Are we ready to sacrifice our future for a short-­‐term burst of jobs to build a pipeline? The public needs to get their hands out of their pockets and put everything they have behind actions to address this problem. Jeffrey Meyer Poway WEB LINK http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/02/keystone-­‐climate-­‐global-­‐warming/ CCL FILENAME 2013 02 02 UTSanDiego Reaves – Mitchell – Saunders – Meyer 4LTE Conversation about Keystone OPED, FEBRUARY 2, 2013 GOP should answer climate call By Robert Speiser President Obama’s promise to “respond to income households, for the rising costs the threat of climate change” is welcome associated with the tax. news to a nation reeling from the impact of As the carbon tax increases over time, global warming. Republicans can meet the we’d then see two benefits: stronger market president at least halfway — with a solution pressure for clean energy development and that uses the marketplace to lower distribution, and bigger cash returns to greenhouse gas emissions — and can earn the households, until cleaner, cheaper energy credit for it. becomes the norm. We know we need to shift decisively from Coupled with a tariff on imports from dirty fossil fuels to clean, safe energy, and that other countries that don’t also put a price on we’ve got the skills, knowledge, and people carbon, a carbon tax, even if enacted only in we need to do it. So the question is: What’s the United States, could achieve something the most effective way? unattainable through regulation here at home In his second inaugural address, “knowing — economic pressure to reduce greenhouse that failure to do so would betray our emissions elsewhere in the world. children and future generations,” Obama Historically, Republicans have led the way promised action on climate change. Because for our environment. The Clean Air Act of the current partisan divide in Congress dims 1970 and the founding of the Environmental prospects for effective legislation, the Protection Agency, both during the Nixon administration will likely turn to the administration, were key Republican Environmental Protection Agency to further achievements. regulate greenhouse emissions, extending A strong stand by Republicans for the regulation, for example, to existing coal-­‐fired environment, right now, offers special power plants. opportunities as well as risks. The need is In contrast to a regulatory approach, urgent, time is short, and the public expects there’s a direct, straightforward path based action. The United States, as it has before, can on market dynamics: a steadily -­‐ increasing lead the way to a better, more productive, tax on the CO2 content of coal, oil, and natural more attractive future. gas, as proposed, for example, by the Why not seize the moment, stand up, and nonpartisan Citizens Climate Lobby. be counted for a strong solution? A significant but predicable fee for carbon Robert Speiser is a retired can engage the power of the market to impel mathematician and educator, and a transition to clean energy. Further, returning volunteer for the Citizens Climate revenue from the tax to the public equitably Lobby. He lives in Salt Lake City. can compensate consumers, especially low-­‐
WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=55732921 CCL FILENAME 2013 02 02 SaltLakeTribune Speiser OPED GOP should answer climate call SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH OPED, FEBRUARY 2, 2013 Climate change: The next civil rights battle By Gerald Elias Twentieth-­‐century America saw hard-­‐
fought civil rights progress for organized labor, women, African Americans and gays. In the 21st century, the looming civil rights battle that will affect all Americans, all humanity, is the battle to save planet Earth from becoming uninhabitable due to climate change. And if we don’t win this one, there might not be a 22nd. Climate change a civil rights issue? Why ? Because humanity should not be held hostage by a profit-­‐obsessed fossil-­‐fuel cartel. Because humanity has the right to breathe air not laced with carbon; the right to drink water not contaminated by fracking; the right to live on land that hasn’t been slashed and burned into barren submission. Humanity has the right to live on a sustainable planet. Victories in those earlier movements were spearheaded neither by enlightened political leadership nor by a sympathetic populace. They started with the activism of a motivated and dedicated few who organized at the grassroots level, engaging in often-­‐unpopular protest, civil disobedience, and occasional violence, until their voices were heard. The vocal persistence of the leaders and followers of those movements, and the courage of their convictions, finally overcame fierce, determined opposition of entrenched interests that controlled our political sy stem and public opinion. Just as tobacco companies engaged in decades of disinformation about their poisonous products, so, too, does the fossil-­‐
fuel industry attempt to sow doubt in our minds with its proclamations that today’s climate change is the result of a naturally occurring cycle; that, as our ecosystems crumble before our very eyes, humans play , at worst, a passive role in the process. Make no mistake, this myth has been thoroughly debunked. The world is not flat, no matter how much our contemporary orthodoxy may protest otherwise. Another Big Lie promulgated by Big Fuel and politicos who pay lip service to climate change is that our only choice is between environment or economy. In reality , while the politicization of climate change has stifled American leadership, industry, entrepreneurship, and ingenuity , other developed and developing countries increasingly rely upon renewable energy technology as a key trigger of economic growth. So far, our government’s response to efforts by science and concerned citizens to stem the inexorable march of climate change has been tepid at best. Even with recent disasters like Hurricane Sandy, drought in the Midwest, and record-­‐smashing wildfires that set the West ablaze, government reaction has been piecemeal and myopic — they don’t see the forest for the smoke. That the United States has no unified policy to address climate change is shameful. Yes, our civil rights are being infringed upon, and by a relatively small group of self-­‐
serving business interests whose primary concern is enriching themselves. Like drug dealers, they feed the world’s addiction to the fuel they’ve hooked us on for a century , all in the guise of providing “cheap, sensible” energy . But what about our cost while they rake in the profits? Billions of dollars of health care expenses, our very well-­‐being, and the systematic destruction of the planet itself. What kind of world do you want for your children? When the tractors soon arrive at Utah’s Book Cliffs to begin their wanton desecration of wilderness, who will stand in the way? Who will become our eco-­‐Freedom Riders? With unlimited potential from solar, wind, and geothermal energy, the end of the day of the drug dealer should be at hand. Do we have the resolve to make it so, or will our day be the first to end? Gerald Elias is a musician, author, and volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55693599-­‐82/climate-­‐civil-­‐rights-­‐battle.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 02 02 SaltLakeTribune Elias OPED Climate change – the next civil rights battle KENOSHA, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2013 Congress needs to act on global warming I’d like to expand on a recent letter which discussed the current trajectory we are on to raise the global temperature by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a World Bank Study. Four degrees does not sound like much, but our children’s financial and social stability are at risk. Scientists forecast that with 1 degree of warming, heat waves and droughts will become normal with the resulting agricultural and financial implications as well as heat-­‐related deaths. An October 2012 Pentagon report on climate change finds the Colorado River, which provides 27 million Americans with drinking water, as susceptible to “dry up by 2057 due to climate change and overuse.” As the climate warms, water supplies will dwindle in far off nations, and political instability will jeopardize the safety of nuclear and chemical weapons abroad. The Pentagon report on climate change states “water challenges worldwide will pose a threat to U.S. security interests.” Fiscal losses from crops, storm damage and relocation needs are projected to overwhelm the insurance payout system, and our economy. Congress, including Rep. Paul Ryan, need to reduce carbon emissions by placing a steadily rising fee on carbon dioxide pollution, and return the money to American households. Amy Champlin Kenosha WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 02 01 KenoshaNews Champlin LTE Congress needs to act on global warming ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2013 Global warming starting to be accepted The warmer temperatures around here are exactly as predicted by the real climatologists, who are not on the corporate payrolls. Also predicted is the melting of polar ice and ocean acidification, which is bad news for people who like fish. In a recent letter, Pryce Score stated “not all scientists or climate experts believe in what used to be called global warming.” I hope the writer had the opportunity last week to listen to testimony before the State House and Senate Environment Committees. (Go to the Senate website, Tuesday, January 22 meeting.) Dr. Mark Seely, University of Minnesota, Dr. John Abraham, University of St. Thomas, our well-­‐respected Minnesota meteorologist Paul Douglas, and J. Drake Hamilton, science policy director for the non-­‐profit Fresh Energy, all disagreed. Ninety seven percent of peer-­‐reviewed, published, climate scientists see a connection between the data presented on warming and human activity. Douglas quoted Paul Schopenhauer: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as self-­‐evident.” We see this climate truth now coming out of stage two. As in the case of cigarette companies denying a connection between smoking and cancer, paid “doctors” have been enlisted to provide confusion and ridicule. Readers should be aware there is a great deal of misinformation being promulgated by the fossil fuel interests. The facts to keep firmly in mind are: There has been a 1.4F degree warming in the past century. This is the global average, and implies that some places on Earth are actually colder and some are much warmer. For example, at the Detroit Lakes weather station, the average since 1960 is around 4F degrees warmer. Likewise at other area weather stations. Check this out at temperaturetrends.org. Click on Minnesota first and then on Congressional District 7. The warmer temperatures around here are exactly as predicted by the real climatologists, who are not on the corporate payrolls. Also predicted is the melting of polar ice and ocean acidification, which is bad news for people who like fish. Susanne Engstrom Alexandria, MN WEB LINK http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/101647/ CCL FILENAME 2013 02 01 EchoPress Engstrom LTE Global warming starting to be accepted LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2013
Don’t dismiss the dangers of climate change George F. Will’s Jan. 27 op-­‐ed column, “Setting up a conservative revival,” came to the conclusion that addressing climate change will be difficult and costly, and therefore we should do nothing about it. What a novel idea! Imagine if that was how we taught our children to handle challenges. Mr. Will suggested that climate-­‐change legislation would be futile because the United States emits only 16 percent of global emissions. Stated in a different way, however, that’s one-­‐sixth of all emissions by a nation that contains less than one-­‐twentieth of the world’s population. Global action is required, and that requires the biggest emitters to lead. Dan Cantor Highland WEB LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-­‐dismiss-­‐the-­‐dangers-­‐of-­‐climate-­‐
change/2013/01/31/2cd4d508-­‐696a-­‐11e2-­‐9a0b-­‐db931670f35d_story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 31 WashingtonPost Cantor LTE Dont dismiss the dangers of climate change CONANICUT ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2013 Congress needs to address climate change During his second inaugural address last In a recent online posting, U.S. Sen. week, President Obama promised action on Whitehouse wrote that he was “glad to hear climate change during his second term, [the president] state his intent to act on an acknowledging that “failure to do so would issue that has already affected too many lives betray our children and future generations.” – climate change.” With the current partisan divide in Congress I am looking forward to his efforts and to dimming the prospects for effective climate those of the president. It’s time for legislation, the administration is likely to turn Republicans to meet the president – and their to the Environmental Protection Agency to colleagues across the aisle – halfway with a further regulate greenhouse gas emissions, solution that uses the marketplace, rather extending such rules to existing coal-­‐fired than government regulations. power plants. Last summer’s heat was record breaking. It’s a start, but a regulatory approach And stifling. Major damage to our beaches would become unnecessary with the passage and seawalls is becoming more and more of a steadily rising tax on the CO2 content of frequent as a result of sea-­‐level rise. I know coal, oil and gas. A clear and predictable price we’ve all noticed. We need our lawmakers to on carbon would use the power of the market find common ground and enact legislation to speed the transition to clean energy and that steers us away from a precipice far more reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the dangerous than the fiscal cliff. revenue from this tax were returned to Also, I am one of the heads of the Rhode households, consumers would be shielded Island chapter of Citizen’s Climate Lobby, an from the economic impact of rising energy organization dedicated to cultivating political costs associated with the price on carbon. will for safe climate legislation. Our next Furthermore, if coupled with a tariff on meeting will take place at noon on Saturday, goods from nations that lack similar carbon Feb. 2, at the Portsmouth Library, 2658 East pricing, the carbon fee and dividend would Main Road. All are invited to attend. also achieve something unattainable through Alison Glassie regulation– motivation for other nations to Ocean Avenue initiate policies that reduce greenhouse gas Jamestown emissions. WEB LINK http://www.jamestownpress.com/news/2013-­‐01-­‐
31/Letters_to_the_Editor/Congress_needs_to_address_climate_change.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 31 JamestownPress Glassie LTE Congress needs to address climate change LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 30, 2013 Carbon dioxide’s role in warming is clear The letter from James Russo, “Are environmentalists unfazed by facts?” echoes typical climate-­‐denier myths that have been disproven. Most environmentalists accept the views of climate scientists, who are not in accord with Russo’s statements. Over short periods of time (up to a decade or so), global temperature fluctuates up and down due to many causes. Hence, temperature is not expected to be strongly correlated with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for short time intervals. Geological and paleontological data show that over millions of years of geologic history, there is a strong correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations. Over the past two centuries, human-­‐
generated carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have steadily and sharply increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and global mean temperature has increased along with them. That is consistent with scientists’ physical understanding of carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect. It is sad that those who don’t (or refuse to) understand the science are trying to persuade us we can ignore the climate disruption being caused when we burn fossil fuels. Richard Ball Annandale WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor/article_f1fc414d-­‐90f6-­‐5351-­‐
932f-­‐1f8f9c6747e2.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 30 RichmondTD Ball LTE Carbon dioxides role in warming is clear ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 30, 2013 The 'climategate' scientists weren't here One durable truth: “Liars can figure and figures can lie.” And so it is that we have to try and figure out all that comes to us about climate change. Beside figures, there is another category of truth that is relevant, and that is the truth of physics; and very simple physics at that. We are all (even grade-­‐schoolers) perfectly comfortable with the realities of evaporation and condensation. We battle or benefit from the greenhouse effect on every sunny day. There is no question that carbon dioxide is released in every combustion event. People are generally aware that a carbon dioxide molecule is so profoundly stuck together that it will stay together and do its work for 100 years. We can consider some geologic principles and comprehend that we are currently un-­‐sequestering the carbon of geologic time in a geologic instant. These are the truths that convince me of climate change and human ability to cause it. Never mind that glaciers, coral reefs, beetle infestations, monster storms, my own rising homeowner’s insurance costs and so forth and so on are screaming climate change. And then, I wonder where on earth the “climategate” scientists were in 2012 when they found that the atmosphere was cooler? Not in my garden anyway! I think I’ll stick to a NASA scientist. Judith Rose Alexandria, Minnesota WEB LINK http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/101563/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 30 EchoPress Rose LTE The ‘climategate’ scientists weren’t here ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 30, 2013 Skepticism versus denial Reading the letter in the January 23 issue question; that these were 30,000 scientists of the Echo asserting that there is “no and climatologists is dubious at best. consensus over global warming,” I was According to the petition’s own website, only reminded of Daniel Moynihan’s maxim that 39 of the 30,000 or .01 percent of the everyone is entitled to one’s own opinion but respondents claimed a background in not one’s own facts. climatology. This puts the scientific validity of The writer makes the curious claim that the petition into serious doubt. global warming somehow ended in 1998 and As for the oft-­‐repeated “Climategate” since then, “the temps leveled off, even meme, both e-­‐mail correspondents involved lowered a bit.” The National Climate Data have been long cleared of any unethical or Center shows the period from 2000-­‐2009 to unprofessional conduct by their respective be the hottest decade since 1880 when academic institutions. There is no evidence of climatic records were first kept, with seven of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of the 10 hottest years on record occurring in George Soros nefariously funding climate this time. research, no admission that global warming is As for 2012, it may not have been as hot as a hoax, no evidence of falsifying of data, and 1998, but it still came in at number 10, with no “marching orders” from shadowy 2010 heading the list as the hottest year ever. socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. Although 2012 ranked “only” 10th hottest on A healthy skepticism is essential to the global scale, it was the hottest year on effective scientific enquiry, but denial in the record in the continental United States. face of irrefutable facts tolls its death knell. Next, that 30,000 people signed a petition James L. Pohl “questioning the science and conclusions Alexandria, MN behind global warming theory” is not in WEB LINK http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/101562/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 30 EchoPress Pohl LTE Skepticism versus denial SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 29, 2013 Tax carbon Tuesday ’s oil rig fire near Duchesne carbon, imposed at the mine, wellhead or illustrates still another reason to reduce our border, would make up for that unseen dependency on fossil fuels. expense, creating a more level play ing field The pollution generated by our use of among various power sources and thereby carbon-­‐based fuels in vehicles, industry and encouraging the production of more sun, homes includes pollutants that create climate wind and geothermal energy . change and affect our health. But we don’t The IRS could then distribute the resulting often think about the additional pollution revenue among American households to produced while obtaining those fuels, from offset the price increases created by the fee. mining to refining and transport, let alone the It’s time to put this long-­‐championed idea additional dirtying of the air by accidents into action and reduce the carbon pollution in such as the burning of the Duchesne area oil our state and nation. rig. Judy Lord Producers are not required to pay for the Salt Lake City health costs of using fossil fuels. A fee on WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55692318-­‐82/carbon-­‐fuels-­‐oil-­‐duchesne.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 01 29 SaltLakeTribune Lord LTE Tax carbon OPED, JANUARY 29, 2013 Warming deniers akin to the tobacco lobby By Morey Wolfson The 2012 weather statistics and climate-­‐
change news rocked a growing number of us in the San Gabriel Valley out of complacency. As an active participant in state, regional, and national energy and environment policy processes for over forty years, this last year feels like a seismic shift in the conversation on climate change. I thank the Pasadena Star News for offering this space to offer my observations and opinions. Recognizing the risk of over-­‐simplifying what we all know is a complex topic, I suggest that society faces these two broad problems: climate change and climate deniers (who would prefer to be called skeptics). And I suggest that society has two broad solutions available. The first problem -­ climate change The lack of space here does not allow for a summary, let alone a recitation, of the myriad pertinent facts such as record-­‐breaking temperatures and the accelerating Arctic ice melt. Here is the point -­‐ the evidence of ever-­‐
worsening climate change is incontrovertible. The climate crisis is recognized by nearly all climate scientists and over 50 prestigious scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences. In a rational intellectual environment, the climate evidence would have been recognized long ago -­‐ putting to rest any remaining debate whether human-­‐
caused climate change is taking place. In a less corrupted political system, elected officials would have enacted policies designed to confront the threat head-­‐on. The second problem -­ climate deniers Responsible citizens must single out the deniers and expose their motives: protecting their substantial profits and economic clout. It is common knowledge that the fraternity includes deep pockets in the fossil fuel industry, conservative media outlets, blow-­‐
hard talk show hosts, and for-­‐hire “conservative think tanks.” For decades, these deniers have employed the same deceit and obfuscation methods used by those in the tobacco industry, who tried to deny a connection between smoking and cancer. Our broken system of campaign finance and lobbying has allowed major polluters, billionaires, and ideologues to buy off the Republican Party and essentially scare off a large fraction of the Democratic Party. Adult supervision of this vital issue requires an end to the long-­‐standing practice of kowtowing to climate deniers. For example: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe constantly repeats, to the delight of the fossil fuel industry, that “climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” In response to Inhofe, at a hearing following Hurricane Sandy, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said “we’ve tolerated the deniers for far too long in this body.” Whitehouse criticized “a rear-­‐
guard action in this building led by polluters” who are against taking action on climate change. “They are just plain dead wrong. I think some of the courtesies that we have given to one another collegially really have to yield to the fact that some of the things that are being said in the Senate are just plain wrong.” Solutions are within reach There is no doubt that we now have the technical know-­‐how to integrate much higher levels of clean energy technology into our electric and transportation systems. Recent advances in clean and renewable technologies have been remarkable. Many of the gains resulted from government research and development investments, coupled with legislative policies, such as efficiency and renewable portfolio standards. Through greater reliance on conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy, Pasadena Water and Power, LADWP, and other California utilities are on a path to meet state policy mandates to lower carbon emissions in their electric supply. Although this present path is laudable, the mid-­‐2020s timeline for weaning the California grid off of coal power imported from Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona are inadequate and timid. A variety of studies by top universities (including Stanford) have detailed how the US electric grid can be economically and completely weaned off of fossil fuels by 2030. We need political will We must urge our political leaders to act in the broader public interest and enact effective policies to address the crisis. A grassroots group—350.org—offers several solid pathways. Responsible and informed citizens should advocate for a fee-­‐and-­‐
dividend system as designed by the Citizens Climate Lobby. Congress needs to pass legislation to place a fee on the amount of carbon dioxide in fossil fuels, assessed at the source of the fuel: at the mine, well, or port of entry. The fee starts out low and increases annually in a predictable manner until clean and renewable energy is competitive with fossil fuel. The fee is collected by the federal government and 100 percent is refunded to all citizens. Because the fee (and the price of fossil fuel) goes up predictably over time, it sends a clear price signal to begin using fossil fuels more efficiently or replace them with clean energy. Americans have rolled up their sleeves before. It is time to do it again. Morey Wolfson works with the Pasadena chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 01 29 PasadenaStarNews Wolfson OPED Warming deniers akin to the tobacco lobby EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY, OREGON EDITORIAL, JANUARY 28, 2013 Kerry ‘gets it’ on climate Secretary of state nominee has strong grasp of issue Sen. John Kerry, President Obama’s nominee for secretary for state, warned his Senate colleagues last Thursday that climate change ranks among the most urgent global threats confronting the United States. At a time when this nation and the rest of the world face unprecedented heat waves, unrelenting droughts, ferocious storms and massive wildfires, it’s encouraging to hear the man who is likely to be confirmed as the nation’s top diplomat make clear that he understands the consequences of human-­‐
induced climate change. Kerry believes the United States must not only join the fight to limit global warning, but lead it. Kerry said in his opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that American foreign policy “is defined by life-­‐
threatening issues” such as global warming. He is no newcomer to this complex, vitally important issue. The Massachusetts Democrat has participated in international discussions of climate change and in the Senate has been a longtime champion of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Two years ago, Kerry failed in an all-­‐out effort to win Senate passage of a cap-­‐and-­‐
trade bill. If confirmed as secretary of state, he will have new opportunities to make a difference on the nation’s climate policies. Later this year, the next secretary of state will recommend to President Obama whether he should grant TransCanada a permit to build the 1,700-­‐mile Keystone XL pipeline extension, which would carry tar oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast. In weighing a broad range of energy and environmental factors, Kerry would also make certain that full consideration will be given to the essential question of the pipeline’s effect on the global climate. In his confirmation hearing, Kerry had a revealing exchange with Sen. John Barrosso, R-­‐Wyo., who argued that stricter environmental regulations would do extensive damage to the nation’s economy while having minimal impact on global warming. Kerry’s response was squarely on target and rejected Republican mythology that a 21st century energy and climate policy runs counter to sound economic policy. “The solution to climate change is energy policy,” he said. “You want to do business and do it well in America, we have got to get into the energy race.” Citing Massachusetts and California as prime examples, Kerry observed that green energy and conservation sectors are “growing faster than any other” and creating new jobs in an economy still struggling with chronic unemployment. With a new World Bank report and other studies warning of the consequences of warming, Kerry understands the need for the United States to enter into bilateral climate agreements with other countries — in particular with China and India where explosive industrial development threatens back from near economic collapse and to pass to exacerbate an already rapidly escalating health care reform. The president’s problem. nomination of Kerry should help ensure that The United States has had a dismal record the administration gives the issue of global on global warming, and President Obama warming the extraordinary emphasis it made the climate a secondary issue during his deserves. first term as he struggled to bring the nation WEB LINK http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/29350385-­‐47/kerry-­‐climate-­‐global-­‐energy-­‐
nation.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 01 28 RegisterGuard Ed Board EDITORIAL Kerry ‘gets it’ on climate Note: an article mentioning CCL (titled “Change policies on climate change”) appeared in the Eugene Register-­‐Guard on November 15: http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/sevendays/29030266-­‐
47/eugene-­‐county-­‐lane-­‐wrong-­‐christian.html.csp LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2013 Conservative Obama? NEWPORT BEACH, Mark Tabbert: President Barack Obama expressed his goals in “conservative terms” because he is a conservative, a holdover from conservatives long departed [“A confident, but detached, inaugural,” Opinion, Jan. 24]. Conservatives care about people. For instance, Earl Warren, the 30th governor of California and a radical Republican conservative, proposed and worked hard for universal health care. Under President Richard Nixon we passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act – all conservation measures true conservatives should be proud of. Today's Republicans and Democrats have sold out to multinational corporations. As to climate change, it is settled science – unless you're ExxonMobil or Big Coal. Exxon, for instance, employed “public relation firms” to create doubt about the science of climate change, using the same tactics the tobacco industry used to fight the science on smoking and health. Republicans have followed Exxon's lead – hook, line and sinker. True conservatives should be leading a fight for a carbon tax that is a free-­‐market solution to climate change. Obama, it seems, plans to do it wrong. EPA regulations, cap-­‐and-­‐trade schemes and subsidies all fall short of what a revenue-­‐
neutral carbon tax could do. A carbon tax would truly begin to address the climate problem, would stimulate the economy, add jobs and establish American leadership on the issue internationally. WEB LINK http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/nothing-­‐409519-­‐spending-­‐tustin.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 28 OrangeCountyRegister Tabbert LTE Conservative Obama DON MILLS, ONTARIO, CANADA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2013 Poetical counterattack (4 letters) Re: “Extreme media alert,” Terence Corcoran, Jan. 24 Terence Corcoran’s recent column appears to be an even-­‐more-­‐than-­‐usual hysterical response to the evidence everywhere that humans are causing dangerous climate disruption with our carbon dioxide emissions. There is really only one way to respond to such anti-­‐science drivel: The science out there is frightful Yet Corcoran is so neglectful He takes up the Oily refrain “It’s untrue” “It’s untrue” “It’s untrue” Christine Penner Polle Red Lake, Ontario Re: The above and “Keystone vs. religion,” Peter Foster, Jan. 22 I read the Financial Post primarily as I am aligned with the idea of a market-­‐driven economy. I also read it to stay informed and aid me, to an extent, with my investment decisions. I’m troubled, however, by the commentary of certain writers who seem bent on putting ideology ahead of empirical evidence. In particular, the issue of climate change is continuously discussed via half truisms and cherry-­‐picked facts. I know this because many of the assertions reported are easily checked by surfing to the relevant website and reading for one’s self the full picture. I don’t have enough space in this letter to the editor to provide examples as there are many. I’m concerned that these commentators take the view that if the empirical evidence doesn’t fit the ideology, just change the facts. George Orwell called this “newspeak.” Hardly a practice a paper like the Post should associate itself with. One can dismiss these commentators as cranks and out of touch. The trouble is, by condoning this sort of reporting, the Financial Post colours its other articles and reporters with the same brush. As such, I have to ask myself, how seriously should I take any article printed in this newspaper? D. Kelly-­Ward Ajax, Ontario For a newspaper with so much authority and gravitas on financial and economic affairs, I am at a loss to understand why the FP continues to publish op-­‐eds like Peter Foster’s. James Hansen would be appalled that Mr. Foster is taking his research wildly out of context to justify inaction on climate change. The Oval Office is surely aware that 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human-­‐induced carbon emissions and poses an increasingly enormous economic cost the longer it remains unaddressed. And even conservative economists will now tell you that environmental issues are undeniably linked to economic prosperity, and a price on carbon provides the certainty to make sound business decisions. The fact that the FP continues to provide a pulpit for ideas that are wildly out of sync with reality is undermining its credibility. Patrick DeRochie Toronto that it will cause and becomes totally misleading at best. Temperatures have been rising over the past 16 years according to MET and NASA, opposite to what he writes. As a reader, I feel disrespected with the printing of such a tripe piece and it undermines the credibility of the paper. How can the paper allow a comment like Sharon Howarth Peter Foster’s? He acknowledges that climate Toronto change is happening. But then he tries to divert our attention from the catastrophes WEB LINK http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/01/28/fp-­‐letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐poetical-­‐counterattack/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 28 FinancialPost Polle C & Kelly-­‐Ward & DeRochie & Howard LTE Poetical counterattack (4 letters) AUSTIN, TEXAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2013 Warming not ideological I was relieved to hear President Barack Obama identify climate change as one of the challenges we need to face in the next term. We cannot keep pretending that climate change is an ideological point of contention, while our already changed climate continues to wreak havoc on our crops, our coastlines, and our homes. To build bipartisan support, the president and Congress need to get behind a market-­‐based solution like the revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. Putting a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels at the source will be a whole lot more palatable, not to mention effective in the long run, than simply tightening regulations on CO2 emissions and creating more incentives for clean energy. Our self-­‐destructive dependency on fossil fuels threatens our kids’ futures, and it is time for all of us to get behind nonpartisan solutions. Julia Fazio Austin WEB LINK http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐129/nT8Y8/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 28 AustinStatesman Fazio LTE Warming not ideological LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2013 Put fee on carbon and give proceeds to people suffering from dirty air An inversion covers downtown Salt Lake
City, Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013.
Ravell Call, Deseret News
and the window for obtaining the pass was only a few days; it is at least an acknowledgement that they can do something to clean up our air. Frankly, this sounds like green-­‐washing — while stating that one-­‐third of our dirty air comes from vehicular traffic, they neglect to mention that Kennecott also contributes one-­‐
third of the pollution, according to Department of Air Quality reports. Why don't they close down or reduce activities on red air days? Why haven't they cleaned up their emissions (technology is available)? Why is only the public asked to cut back? We clearly need a fee on carbon at the source to encourage companies whose emissions are foul to clean up. The proceeds of this fee should go directly to the households that are suffering from the dirty air. Kennecott has begun to take responsibility for the nasty air we are breathing this winter. They have made free passes available for public transportation during "red air" days Kathryn Allbury through the SLC Downtown Alliance. Never Salt Lake City mind that there is only one per household and it is only good for one day (this is at least the seventh day of breathing unhealthy air) WEB LINK http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765621203/Put-­‐fee-­‐on-­‐carbon-­‐and-­‐give-­‐proceeds-­‐to-­‐
people-­‐suffering-­‐from-­‐dirty-­‐air.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 28 Allbury LTE Put fee on carbon and give proceeds to people suffering from dirty air EDITORIAL, JAN. 27, 2013 United States should lead on climate President Barack Obama called on Americans last week to renew the battle against climate change. This line from his inaugural address garnered deserved attention: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” But pause the tape right there. First, Obama in his four years as president already has taken several actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions, primarily through increased fuel efficiency rules for vehicles. So the president hasn’t exactly been missing in action on this issue, although he did suffer a big failure in 2009 when Congress killed a loophole-­‐filled bill designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, and looking forward, Obama’s mention of climate change — while a stirring call to action, saying we can do better than we are right now because the stakes are so high — offered no more details into how that happens. It’s more of the same positive message he’s been preaching for years. For example, he wants to promote investments in wind power, which means it’s good the wind energy tax credit was extended for 2013. But bumping up wind production — or the use of other renewables — won’t do much to quickly and dramatically reduce the harmful manmade emissions that help cause global warming and contribute to climate change. The key — as environmental organizations, politicians and fossil fuel industries well know — is taking direct actions to cut into those emissions. It can be done many ways. Some utilities, such as Kansas City Power & Light, are going at the problem with a multi-­‐pronged approach. The utility has installed equipment to slash emissions, has invested in wind power in Kansas and has promoted a few conservation programs. But KCP&L, along with all other coal-­‐powered utilities across the nation, will have to carefully watch how quickly and how strictly the nation’s clean air laws are enforced in the coming months by the Obama administration. That’s because one of the best ways to reduce the emissions is to further ratchet down the limits on how much can be spewed into the air by power plants. Obama faces a number of pivotal decisions in dealing with climate change. Americans now will be focused on his State of the Union speech in mid-­‐
February, to see what kinds of policy changes and funding goals he might propose. He tried and bombed on promoting a cap-­‐and-­‐trade measure in 2009. The bill was designed to make businesses buy and sell permits to meet an overall goal of fewer emissions. But this complicated approach is too lenient on polluters and would take too long to work. Congress rejected it. Instead, The Star and some environmental groups favor imposition of a carbon tax or fee on fossil fuels, designed to encourage coal-­‐fired plant operators to install more modern equipment. But plenty of supporters — including some in the conservative ranks — say a carbon charge has a chance of being approved only if it’s revenue neutral. One of the proposed ideas is to return the funds raised by the tax or fee to Americans through reduced payroll taxes. It’s an interesting idea to pursue if Obama goes for a carbon tax approach. Finally, Obama will have to be more creative in working with the rest of the globe, especially the fast-­‐
growing countries of India and China, to trim their manmade emissions. Climate change is a worldwide problem begging for worldwide solutions. Still, America should take the lead to charge in that direction. WEB LINK: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/26/4031994/united-states-should-lead-on-climate.html
CCL FILE NAME: 2013_01_26_KansasCityStar_EDITORIAL_United_States_should_lead_on_climate
MADISON, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 Will climate change words translate into actions?
President Lincoln has been attributed with saying that if a man gave him six hours to cut down a tree, he’d spend four hours sharpening the blade. Perhaps that’s why President Barack Obama waited until his second inaugural address to finally address the importance of tackling climate change as a national endeavor. The rhetoric was what I have waited and wanted to hear: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” The path may indeed be difficult, especially given the entrenched power and economic resources of the fossil fuel industries, but it cannot be too long since we don’t have too long to wait. Obama’s words were good, but his actions and those of our legislators need to rise to the challenges of climate change. We could start by imposing a fee on greenhouse gases. We can do this without hurting the pocketbooks of ordinary citizens by returning all the revenue back to households in a monthly “green” check. This would incentivize both consumers and businesses to cut back on their fossil fuel usage, provide a more level playing field for sustainable, clean energy and promote more research and development, investment in and capitalization of clean energy. The question is, does Congress have the moral fortitude to embrace such a policy? Margaret Welke Madison WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/mailbag/margaret-­‐welke-­‐will-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
words-­‐translate-­‐into-­‐actions/article_4abe75ea-­‐67cd-­‐11e2-­‐acd2-­‐001a4bcf887a.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 WiscStateJournal Welke LTE Will climate change words translate into actions MADISON, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 Speech inspired hope, especially regarding climate President Barack Obama’s inaugural rightly said that instead of resisting this address touched on many themes that inspire transition, we should step up and lead it. hope in millions of Americans, but the We have the chance to enact carbon fee moment that instilled the most hope in me and dividend legislation to put renewable was the mention of responding to the threat energy on an even playing field with fossil of climate change. fuels. We have the opportunity to start Climate change will not only affect future building the path to a more just and generations, as the president emphasized, it sustainable world. will affect all of us now. It has already affected By his promise to respond to the threat of many of us this past year, in the form of climate change, Obama has given us promise powerful storms, extensive droughts and for a brighter future. unbearable heat. Laura Green The time for our nation to take meaningful Madison action on climate change is now. Obama WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/mailbag/laura-­‐green-­‐speech-­‐inspired-­‐hope-­‐
especially-­‐regarding-­‐climate/article_718973a0-­‐67cd-­‐11e2-­‐9e84-­‐001a4bcf887a.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 WiscStateJournal Green LTE Speech inspired hope especially regarding climate MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 CLIMATE CHANGE Don't only name issues, but also offer solutions (2 letters) If Minnesotans want to leave a world to their grandchildren anything like the world they grew up in, they should not react to climate change as if they are airline passengers in a plane about to crash ("Prepare for impact of climate change," Jan. 20). Your editorial on the newly published National Climate Summary focused on adaptation to climate change and completely failed to mention mitigation efforts to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere. We are not passive actors in this drama. We can each reduce our carbon emissions, even by driving less. Brian McNeill Minneapolis I read your editorial support for basic climate research with a sense of profound relief that someone is listening. To ensure future water supply and food production, we must continue to enhance funding for basic research on our climate as well as more sustainable ways to produce food. Farmers need this information to adopt best practices. It seems clear that our citizens will benefit from a more productive economy and a friendlier climate. The temperature increases being predicted for future decades are a problem for the whole nation and should get us all marching on Washington. Jeanne Johnson Alexandria, Minnesota WEB LINK http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/188429841.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 StarTribune McNeill & Johnson Dont just name issues but also offer solutions (2 letters) LAWRENCE, KANSAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 Call to action In Obama’s inaugural speech he gave what many have long been waiting for: a clear call to action on climate change. In what is arguably Obama’s most definitive statement on climate change, Obama pushed forward the climate change agenda and declared his commitment to tackling climate change “knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” That, however, is not reason for complacency, but is rather a call for action, for Obama is faced with a stubborn Congress that can likely only be coaxed into action in the face of a groundswell of support. It is apt that Obama’s speech should coincide with Martin Luther King Jr. Day, for just as the civil rights movement had to work from the ground up to overcome the narrow interests of an obstinate elite, similarly the challenge of climate change calls for a groundswell of action and support to overcome the interests of a fossil fuel elite who are intent on locking us into a future detrimental to almost everything except for their short-­‐term financial bottom line. Together we can respond to Obama’s call, and, although as a climate activist and a scholar, I am aware that there is no silver bullet to solve climate change, one of the most elegant, simple, effective, just and economy-­‐
boosting solutions we can push for comes in the form of a carbon fee and dividend such as that proposed by groups like the Citizens Climate Lobby. Alex Lenferna Lawrence WEB LINK http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jan/27/letter-­‐call-­‐action/?opinion CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 LJWorld Lenferna LTE Call to action OPED, JANUARY 27, 2013 Why the Republican Party should back a carbon tax By Lynate Pettengill Special to The Star It was a relief to listen to President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech and hear him say, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” Now the question is how exactly will America address the threat of climate change? Without much hope of Congress quickly passing effective climate legislation, President Obama will probably be forced to use his executive powers and ask the EPA to implement more stringent guidelines regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans, who are likely to find this option unattractive, might want to consider leading the way to another solution: a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, could play a crucial role in this effort. This market-­‐based solution places a tax on carbon directly at its source, at the gas/oil well, coal mine or port of entry. Starting at $15/ton, this tax would increase $10 each year. Within a decade clean energy would be cheaper than fossil fuels, even accounting for the billions in subsidies, which the fossil fuel industry currently enjoys. All the money collected from this tax is then distributed back to the American people on an equitable basis through a monthly bonus check. Under this scenario, 70 percent of Americans would earn as much or more as they would pay for the increased cost of energy and associated goods — a crucial selling point as it does not create an undue burden for the poor or middle class. With a clear, consistent market signal, entrepreneurs and investors would jump into the green economy, helping us to pull ahead in world renewable energy rankings. In an Aug.12, 2012, article on Bloomberg.com, Ernst & Young awarded China No. 1 ranking with a score of 70.2, while the U.S. and Germany tied for second place, both with scores of 66. An on-­‐again, off-­‐again wind energy production tax credit policy is partly to blame for our country’s position in these rankings. Uncertainty regarding the future of renewables would be eliminated with the passage of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax, and we would create millions of new, green jobs as we move forward to become the world leader in renewable energy rankings. Any cries you might hear of, “This will kill jobs!” is simply untrue. In his book “Building a Green Economy,” Joseph Robertson reports the following: “Direct job creation for oil and natural gas is 0.8 jobs per $1 million in output, and coal’s is 1.9 jobs per $1 million in output. Compare that to building retrofits for energy efficiency, which directly create seven jobs per $1 million in output. Mass transit services create 11 and the smart grid creates 4.3. Wind, solar and biomass power generation create 4.6, 5.4 and 7.4 jobs per $1 million in output respectively.” So back to the Republicans. What’s not to love about the revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon? It does not increase the size of government. It provides a market-­‐based solution to the climate change crisis. It encourages innovation and entrepreneurial efforts. And it creates jobs! America is a can-­‐do nation. We just need a little nudge in the right direction; then our inventors, investors, and technicians can take it from there. Mr. President, thank you for your commitment to addressing climate change this term! Now I ask the Republican members of Congress to take the lead by passing a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon. Our children and future generations are counting on you. Lynate Pettengill lives in Lawrence and is a regional coordinator with the Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/27/4032059/why-­‐the-­‐gop-­‐should-­‐back-­‐a-­‐carbon.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 KansasCityStar Pettengill OPED Why the GOP should back a carbon tax RACINE, WISCONSIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 U.S. has become weak The United States has strived to be the best. We have become weak, we are letting our home get destroyed. Iceland is the most environmentally conservative country and the United States is ranked 61st, according to the Environmental Performance Index (2011). We are not using alternative-­‐fuel systems or taking care of the Earth. This is not the America I have read about in my history books. Global warming is apparent with record high temperatures, severe droughts and Hurricane Sandy. 2012 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record. As the temperatures have risen, the ice caps melt and ocean levels are rising. Some parts of the world have severe flooding. If we continue to do what we are doing, the natural Earth will give out. I believe the United States could lead the world in an environmental revolution with our ingenuity. The great part about this is that we have the power to change our ways. We have the power to change the world for the better. Sarah Higgens Caledonia WEB LINK http://journaltimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-­‐from-­‐readers-­‐accept-­‐money-­‐from-­‐
aca-­‐u-­‐s-­‐has/article_f555719c-­‐6828-­‐11e2-­‐8cee-­‐0019bb2963f4.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 JournalTimes Higgens LTE US has become weak SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2013 Cloud of pollution hanging over the valley provides lessons Mike Anderson, Deseret News
poisonous surroundings. I can easily see how If there's a silver lining in the cloud of our living planet could be struggling to do the pollution hanging over the valley, it's that it same. Our way out is to take personal becomes impossible to deny the toxins we're responsibility to pollute less, to support putting into the atmosphere — not just in scientists and entrepreneurs in their January and February when we can physically exploration of clean energy and to demand taste them, but continuously throughout the the same from elected leadership. year. For me, days of inversion also provide an unsettling object lesson. I find myself Matt Weed changing my routine from things I'd naturally Holladay do as a way of compensating for the WEB LINK http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765621154/Inversion-­‐provides-­‐lessons.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 DeseretNews Weed LTE Cloud of pollution hanging over the valley provides lessons EDITORIAL, JANUARY 27, 2013 Obama and climate President must tie action to words “We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity . We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” — President Barack Obama, inaugural address, Jan. 21 Indeed, what were once predictions of climate-­‐related disasters are already playing out for all to see. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science,” Obama pointed out, “but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” The president, in his first term, was not idle. Fuel-­‐efficiency standards are mandated to rise to 54 miles per gallon by 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency is now apply ing the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide, and nearly $100 billion in stimulus funds went toward development of clean energy. But much more is required, and Congress must be on board if the country is to meet Obama’s modest 2020 target for reducing carbon emissions by 17 percent, and 80 percent by 2050. For that to happen, a carbon tax is vital. It is also essential that the United States assume a leadership role in reviving international climate talks aimed at a global strategy for arresting the rise in carbon dioxide levels that, if unchecked, will overwhelm future generations. With his call to action, the president has taken an encouraging step that will require many more from him and from all Americans. There is, quite literally, no time to waste. Stirring words, indeed. Words for our time that suitably frame the magnitude of the challenge. These same words, though, must be accompanied by bold and sustained action, or, with each tick of the climate clock, they will prove utterly meaningless. We have little doubt that President Obama meant every one of the 160 words in his inaugural address that he devoted to the developing threat of climate catastrophe posed by human reliance on energy from fossil fuels. However, as a second-­‐term president, Obama is burdened with a recalcitrant Congress focused on making the United States energy independent by 2020, a goal that may help to sustain the economy but prolong the country’s carbon addiction. Congress has been unwilling to buck industry and place a cap on carbon emissions. Moreover, an abundance of natural gas that is driving down energy costs serves to blunt public pressure to curb the emissions that are causing the planet to warm much faster than scientists had thought likely. WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55687408-­‐82/carbon-­‐climate-­‐obama-­‐
president.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 01 27 DeseretNews Ed Board EDITORIAL Obama and climate – President must tie action to words LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 26, 2013 Taste of pollution If there’s a silver lining in the cloud of pollution hanging over the valley it’s that it is impossible to deny the toxins we’re putting into the atmosphere — not just in January and February — when we can physically taste them throughout the year. For me, days of inversion also provide an unsettling object lesson. To compensate for the poisonous surroundings, I change my routine from things I’d naturally do. I can easily see how our living planet could be struggling to do the same. Our way out is to take personal responsibility to pollute less, to support scientists and entrepreneurs in their exploration of clean energy, and to demand the same from our elected leaders. Matt Weed Holladay
WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55693084-­‐82/pollution-­‐taste-­‐atmosphere-­‐
clean.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 01 26 SaltLakeTribune Weed LTE Taste of pollution LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 26, 2013 Earth’s climate is changing Letter-­‐writer Richard Ludwig asks, “Why is it so cold in China?” Although it is cold in China and North America, the Earth’s noticeable warming is most certainly because of our carbon emissions. In 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released data that show temperature anomalies of June and August of that year. Although the temperatures in North America and Northern Asia were colder than previous years, the rest of the world experienced temperatures much warmer than average. What China and North America are experiencing is a circulation pattern called the Arctic Oscillation, currently in its negative phase. Normally in the positive phase, the Arctic Oscillation’s winds circulate around the Arctic and that keeps the cold air bottled up. In the negative phase, the cold air flows out of the Arctic into North America and Asia. NOAA’s 2010 data of the monthly Arctic Oscillation Index show that the most recent negative phases have been the strongest since the 1970s. Climate change is not a matter of opinion. It is supported by concrete scientific evidence and understanding the problem cannot be boiled down to whether or not the Earth’s temperature is steadily rising. While temperatures may not always be rising, it’s evident that the Earth’s climate is changing in an unnatural way. Katie DiPrete Richmond WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor/article_f1fc414d-­‐90f6-­‐5351-­‐
932f-­‐1f8f9c6747e2.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 26 RichmondTD DiPrete LTE Earths climate is changing YORK, PENNSYLVANIA OPED, JANUARY 25, 2013 Rep. Perry can be a leader on climate change By Jon Clark I would like to congratulate Scott Perry and welcome the newly elected representative to Pennsylvania's 4th District. We face many challenges as a nation, and I commend Rep. Perry for running for public office to take on these challenges. The greatest challenge we face is our rapidly changing climate. Our best available science shows that the earth is getting warmer, the warming is caused mostly by the release of massive quantities of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, and continuing down our current path, the warming will accelerate with serious consequences for much of life on earth. The experts overwhelmingly agree with this. Just recently, yet another official report came out confirming that climate change is real and is indeed a serious threat to us all. The draft U.S. Climate Assessment is a federally commissioned report by more than 240 scientists showing that the U.S. is already feeling the impacts of global warming. The assessment, put together by many of the country's top climate experts, points to an increase of 9-­‐15 degrees F by 2100 if we continue with business as usual saying, "Human-­‐induced climate change is projected to continue and accelerate significantly if emissions of heat-­‐trapping gases continue to increase." The report also addresses the link between climate change and the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather disasters. Readers can access all 1146 pages of the report at ncadac.globalchange.gov/ These are warnings similar to many, many other reports coming from the top experts in their fields including virtually every relevant scientific organization and 97 percent of the climate scientists most actively publishing in their scientific field. These are the people you want to listen to for advice, yet climate scientists continue to be ignored, with the U.S. moving full speed ahead with our extraction of fossil fuel resources. It's time for both political parties to acknowledge the urgency and give climate change the priority it demands. If 97 percent of brain surgeons warned that you have a tumor in your brain and you needed life-­‐
saving surgery immediately to save you, would you ignore them as well? If we continue to ignore the top scientists' findings, why bother having science at all? By ignoring these warnings, we're saying that we don't care about what kind of future our children have. It's way past time to start taking action to avoid the worst of the consequences that scientists say are coming. Superstorm Sandy showed that extreme weather disasters don't care about party affiliation. Republican families lost their homes as well as Democratic ones. Republican ranchers and farmers are losing their cattle and crops to the current drought as well as Democratic ranchers and farmers. Climate change isn't politics, it's physics. Rep. Perry can step up and be a leader in his party on this issue. Republicans have a history of using market-­‐based approaches to solving challenges. In fact, cap-­‐and-­‐trade was a Republican idea passed during the Bush Sr. administration as a way to address the acid rain problem. The idea was to set an acceptable upper limit of pollution coming from coal-­‐fired power plants, and let the free market decide how to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions causing the problem rather than beating the industry over the head with regulations. Acid rain was a result of the market not figuring the true costs (the cost of mitigating the problem) into the price of coal. Cap-­‐and-­‐trade was a way to correct for this market failure. Here we are again with the mother of all market failures, climate change. I think we all agree that the burning of fossil fuels is causing much harm to our society, whether it is climate change, spills, or air and water pollution. The true costs of the damage that fossil fuels are causing to society are not figured into the price of a gallon of gas or a ton of coal. A more simple solution to this market failure than cap-­‐and-­‐trade would be a steadily-­‐rising fee on carbon emissions. This would send a signal to the market that the price for these harms is not zero and would not cost our government anything. Industries would look for ways to decarbonize, spurring innovation and efficiency at a massive scale. If we eliminate ALL subsidies (oil, gas, wind, solar) and pay the true costs of fossil fuels through a carbon fee, the free market will greatly speed the transition to clean energy. Making the fee revenue-­‐neutral and returning 100 percent of the revenue collected to every American household equally will protect us from economic harm. A revenue-­‐neutral carbon fee is a conservative, small government, free-­‐market solution to the world's greatest challenge. I urge Rep. Perry to start a dialogue with his colleagues across the aisle to discuss how we can harness the power of the free market to solve our economic and climate problems. Jon Clark is group leader for the York chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.
WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22451103/rep-­‐perry-­‐can-­‐be-­‐leader-­‐climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 01 25 YorkDailyRecord Clark OPED Rep. Clark can be a leader on climate change HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 25, 2013 Replace energy subsidies with tax on carbon emissions In his second Inaugural Address, President Obama said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” One idea for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, now suggested by both liberals and conservatives, is to place a tax on carbon at its sources (mines and wells). A revenue-­‐
neutral program with all the funds collected returned to tax payers through the IRS would off-­‐set the expected increase in the price of fuel and goods. Businesses and responsible individuals pay for hauling away their trash and it is about time that the fossil fuel industry assumes the responsibility for its' climate-­‐
damaging emissions. That is the American way, and the sanctity of our climate depends on it. A scheduled, gradual increase in a carbon tax would allow for orderly business planning and would provide a level playing field for the development of sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar. Subsidies to energy industries should be eliminated. It is time to let both our federal and state representatives know that we care deeply about the future and that they should be enacting a simple carbon tax and rebate program. Michael Mark Derry Township WEB LINK http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2013/01/letters_replace_energy_subsidi.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 25 Patriot News Mark LTE Replace energy subsidies with tax on carbon emissions Free Clear NYC : January 25, 2013 by
Joseph Robertson
supporting comprehensive action to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and
accelerate the transition to clean,
renewable fuels. Still, Congress let the
issue languish on the margins, and the
administration appeared to be more
focused on the practical challenges of
some very difficult problems, and the
incremental means listed above.
When Barack Obama came to office, in
2009, the mood among climate activists
and environmental groups was what many
would describe as buoyant. Obama was
clearly a pragmatist, but had also spoken
eloquently and emotionally about the
urgency of the mounting global climate
crisis, and the need to take action so that
the oceans would begin to recede.
The movement to build full-spectrum
sustainable communities in small towns,
across whole counties and in major cities,
gathered momentum in part because it
was becoming increasingly evident that
we would soon pass some very dire
“tipping points” in the unraveling of the
climate patterns that have prevailed
throughout all of human history.
Obstruction, and the brutal political
struggle to pass other initiatives, along
with hyper-complexity and inconsistent
salesmanship, sidelined the cap and trade
bill, and climate policy was left to
languish. The world community watched,
and waited, and while citizen activists
ramped up efforts to move Congress to
action, the administration was limited to
using Recovery Act funds, the auto
industry bailout, Supreme Court mandated
EPA emissions enforcement and aggressive
new CAFE standards for vehicles, to fight
the good fight.
On October 29, 2012, when the hybrid
tropical-Arctic-plains-based North Atlantic
“superstorm” known as Sandy made
landfall in New York City, the sea levels in
lower Manhattan were reported to be fully
9 inches above normal historic tidal levels,
before the surge. The record flooding
crippled the city’s transit network and a
staffer for Gov. Andrew Cuomo posted a
photograph online of flood waters literally
chasing the governor’s car down 1st
Avenue.
Why Inaugural
Climate Language
Matters
Towns and cities began taking votes in
record numbers to pass resolutions
Since 2005, every year has seen a major
climate-induced crop failure on at least
one continent, and three of those years
have seen droughts that have threatened
the economic viability of the entire global
food supply. The United Nations is now
fully engaged in planning for adaptation,
not merely mitigation, and multiple island
nations have initiated permanent
evacuation plans, in case no other option
is available.
Pres. Obama will not run for office again.
It is unlikely, despite his relatively young
age, that he will return to Congress. His
2nd inaugural address may mark a
watershed moment in American political
history, and in apparent recognition of that
historic weight, he used the occasion to
put his considerable political muscle
behind major and necessary reforms.
By declaring that the United States “will
confront the threat of climate change and
that failure to do so would betray our
children and future generations”, Pres.
Obama made clear that the force of his
legacy years will be put into solving the
most comprehensive threat civilization has
faced, and that he expects Congress to
come together to support responsible
action.
Here is the key: Republicans need to find a
way to get behind legislative action to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In
conversations with staunch Republican
supporters of the carbon-based fuel
industries (oil, natural gas and coal), on
Capitol Hill, it has become evident that a
clear policy that favors business and
innovation, diversification in their home
states and regions, new employment and a
workable transition for carbon-dependent
industries, is what it will take.
Enter Carbon Fee and Dividend, which
may also be described as a carbon
correction fee, with 100% household
revenue return. The plan would put a
steadily increasing fee on carbon-based
fuels, at the point where they enter the
economy, then return 100% of that
revenue to American households.
This arrangement allows the solution to
span the entire marketplace, giving
families, small businesses and individual
consumers more and better options,
without adding to the burden of rising
energy costs. A border adjustment would
ensure that American businesses are not
disadvantaged as against businesses from
nations without a carbon pricing plan, and
the border adjustment would give nations
like China and India incentive to institute
such a plan themselves.
This solution is virtually required at this
moment in history, when Pres. Obama is
aiming to take comprehensive action on
climate and energy policy, and the
Congress is likely to be focused on
powerful interests entrenched in the status
quo. And why does this matter to us, in
New York City, along the Florida coast, in
the Great Smoky Mountains or on the
Kansas plains?
Because it will provide us with a solution
to a problem that is eroding the
foundations of our food supply system,
undermining the stability of political
boundaries across the world, threatening
to impoverish billions of people not
currently living in poverty, and it will do
this in a way that is constructive and
opportunity-generative for most
Americans.
To achieve a genuine full-spectrum
sustainable state of affairs in a metropolis
that lives and breathes on the scale of New
York City, some significant policy reforms
will need to go through, to facilitate and to
economize the process of innovation,
upgrade and deployment. If Congress
passes Carbon Fee and Dividend, Pres.
Obama’s words will resonate across the
world, and the democracy we celebrate
will be more real and more secure than
ever.
The United States is responding to this
threat; the world needs to come together,
to move into a better future, now. That will
be the message; that will be the climate in
which we talk about climate; that will be
the spirit that motivates an economy-wide
transition to fully clean energy resources.
And those resources will give us a vastly
improved quality of life, close to home,
along with new opportunities to build
resiliency into the fabric of our democracy.
Web link: http://
freeclearnyc.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/
why-inaugural-climate-language-matters/
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 25, 2013 Republicans should back a revenue-­neutral carbon tax steadily-­‐rising fee on fossil fuels at the source. I was encouraged to hear the president Returning the proceeds back to American highlight climate change as a threat we need households would help offset increased to address in his inaugural address. However, in the absence of legislation, he energy costs. will only be able to use the tools at his One way or another, it is clear that disposal — regulations on CO2 emissions and America will respond to the threat of climate government incentives for clean energy. change. Doing so with a tax on carbon would A market-­‐based solution would be an encourage Americans to do what we do best easier way to build bipartisan support and — innovate our way into the future of energy. would be more effective. Martha Adams Republicans should get behind a revenue-­‐
Austin neutral carbon tax, which would levy a WEB LINK http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/republicans-­‐should-­‐back-­‐a-­‐revenue-­‐
neutral-­‐carbon-­‐tax.html/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 25 DallasMorningNews Adams LTE Republicans should back a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax OPED, JANUARY 24, 2013 Climate Change and You By Cher Gilmore If you worry about climate change and the reluctance of the U.S. government to support stopping global warming, let alone take the lead on the issue, consider taking action yourself through the Santa Monica chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org). This non-­‐partisan, non-­‐confrontational and effective organization is now working to create the political will—and public policy in the form of a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax—for a stable climate. The latest climate talks took place on Dec. 1, 2012, when the wealthy emirate of Doha, Qatar hosted negotiators from nearly 200 countries to debate slowing global warming to help protect the most vulnerable countries from rising seas and other impacts of climate change. They ended, like the others, in stalemate and failure. The U.S., second only to China in annual CO2 emissions, again could not support a resolution. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, “global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-­‐induced.” The National Academy of Sciences, along with academies in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, has said, “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.” Ninety-­‐
eight percent of climate scientists agree. Bill McKibben (http://www.billmckibben.com), the author Photo By Katie Dalsemer Messenger © View of the Santa Monica Mountains at sunset. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, “global warming is unequivocal,” so it could affect overall temperature and rainfall totals in Topanga and surrounding communities. of a dozen books about the environment, the first being “The End of Nature,” in 1989, is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has reduced the harsh truth about climate change to three numbers: Two degrees Celsius – the amount, according to international consensus, that we can raise the global average temperature above pre-­‐industrial levels and still have a livable planet. So far, we’ve raised the average temperature just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and we’ve lost a third of the summer sea ice in the Arctic, the oceans are 30% more acidic, and we’re seeing more and more disasters like floods, drought, wildfires, and hurricanes. Some scientists say even two degrees is too much. 565 gigatons – the amount of carbon dioxide humans can put into the atmosphere by 2050 and stay below two degrees Celsius, according to scientists. But because previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would still rise about another 0.8 degrees, taking us three-­‐
quarters of the way to two degrees Celsius. 2,795 gigatons—the amount of carbon in the coal, oil, and gas reserves of the fossil fuel companies, which they’re currently planning to burn. This is close to five times higher than the amount we can burn and still keep the planet more or less safe for human habitation. We must keep those reserves in the ground if we want to survive. Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency’s chief economist, says, “New data provide further evidence that the door to a two-­‐
degree trajectory is about to close. When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees.” That, says McKibben, would create a planet straight out of science fiction. Why are obscenely rich fossil fuel companies given government subsidies to continue polluting the planet, rather than asked to pay for the damage they’re doing to our environment? Can we afford to continue with business as usual, when it means: • Rising food prices as more frequent and severe droughts cause crop shortages • More flooding in low-­‐lying coastal areas • Diminishing water supplies as our freshwater sources dry up • Greater chance of more devastating wildfires Economists on both ends of the political spectrum contend that the most effective approach to deal with climate change is a tax on carbon-­‐based fuels that returns the proceeds to the public, either through direct rebates or reductions in other taxes. A direct tax on carbon would make clean energy a more attractive investment, and billions of dollars in private sector money would shift toward clean technologies like wind, solar, geothermal, and other alternatives. Recent polling found that nearly two-­‐
thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. For more information: CCL-­
Laura@Laura-­Matthews.com, www.citizensclimatelobby.org. WEB LINK http://topangamessenger.com/story_detail.php?ArticleID=5831 CCL FILENAME 2013 01 24 TopangaMessenger Matthews OPED Climate change and you AUSTIN, TEXAS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 24, 2013 Climate change and taxes Re: Obama inaugural speech defends liberal goals Taking action on climate change is not a liberal goal. Since all of us are affected by the climate, and most Americans agree that it is a serious problem, it should be a bipartisan goal. If conservatives want to prevent this issue from being addressed via methods they would oppose, such as government incentives and regulations, then they should put forward solutions that are more in line with their values. A steadily rising tax on carbon-­‐based fuels at the point of sale, with all revenue to be returned to households, is a strategy favored by many economists. Because it is market-­‐based, does little to expand government, and is revenue-­‐neutral, even staunch conservatives should be able to approve of it. Unless climate change denial in itself is a core conservative value, there is no excuse for conservatives to stand by and do nothing. Juliana Kunz Austin WEB LINK http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐12513/nT5Rj/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 24 AustinStatesman Kunz LTE Climate change and taxes SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2013 Warmest disregard Thank you for your Jan. 19 editorial "Heat is on; governments don't notice." I agree that governments need to start planning for more extreme weather due to our rapidly warming climate. In addition to planning for more extreme weather, we should be doing everything we can to mitigate the cause: rising amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere. Recently, a draft of the U.S. Climate Assessment was released. Dozens of the nation's top climate scientists contributed to the report, which made clear that if we continue on our current CO2 emissions path, we are headed toward 9 to 15 degrees of warming over much of the U.S. by the end of this century. The recent extreme weather -­‐ including "Megastorm" Sandy, which leveled New Jersey and New York coastal towns, and the mega drought that is causing damages estimated up to $150 billion -­‐ is with only 1.5 degrees of warming so far. The costs of climate change, subsidies, health care costs for pollution, and taxpayer-­‐
funded protection of overseas oil are shouldered by society but should be factored into the price of a ton of coal or a barrel of oil. These hidden costs are called "externalities." A simple solution that economists favor is a "Pigovian tax" levied on anything that generates negative externalities. The idea is simple -­‐ tax anything you want less of. A steadily rising carbon tax with 100 percent of the revenue returned to every household would send a clear price signal to the market to begin to shift investment away from fossil fuels and toward clean, carbon-­‐free, renewable energy. Returning 100 percent of the revenue would not grow the size of government and would protect lower-­‐income families and the middle class from the rising cost of fossil fuels. JON CLARK DOVER, YORK COUNTY WEB LINK http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor-1-23-2013-1.1433370
CCL FILENAME 2013 01 23 TimesTribune Clark LTE Warmest disregard TRENTON, N.J. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 22, 2013 The climate is right for carbon tax Hurricane Sandy and many other extreme reduce Ireland’s deficit from the 2008 financial collapse. weather events over the last two years New Jersey, already second in the nation around the world have provided graphic in solar panel installations, is an innovative evidence that man’s activities are changing community that could benefit from a carbon our climate. The American Meteorological tax. The carbon producers would be taxed. Society, whose members have long studied That revenue could be returned to consumers weather and climate, tell us with certainty through reduced withholding taxes, used to that man is the cause. Many other scientific reduce debt or used to fund further organizations and publications concur. Now we are beginning to read and hear of improvements to our environment. We can solutions. Ireland, Denmark, and British afford those trade-­‐offs. Columbia have legislated carbon taxes with What we can’t afford is to do nothing, encouraging results. Ireland’s emissions have given the predicted calamities to follow in an dropped more than 15 percent since 2008, ever-­‐warming world. according to a December New York Times Huck Fairman report. The revenue generated has helped Princeton WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_589.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 22 TrentonTimes Fairman LTE The climate is right for carbon tax OPED, JANUARY 22, 2013 Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker must take lead in reducing global warming It’s tragic that our country’s leadership is stuck in partisan gridlock when we face some of the most challenging problems of our history. The ongoing fiasco over the fiscal cliff is one glaring example. Yet we face an even more difficult challenge with much more serious consequences of inaction. Climate change threatens to weaken our economy, damage our property and health, and leave future generations with a far less livable planet. As we reflect back on 2012, we see a string of increasingly urgent signals from a warming world. The year — officially the hottest ever experienced by the U.S. according to a report just released by the National Climate Data Center — was punctuated by searing heat waves, a crop-­‐killing drought that afflicted 60 percent of the country, numerous floods, and unprecedented wildfires. It ended with superstorm Sandy, the planet’s exclamation mark, warning that we’re changing the climate in dramatic and disastrous ways. The climate disruptions we’re seeing are the effects of the 1 degree Celsius the earth has warmed so far. The slow response of the planet to our emissions means we haven’t yet felt the full effects of the carbon dioxide we’ve already poured into the atmosphere. Another full degree Celsius — twice what we’re already experiencing — is unavoidable. We can hold the warming there, at 2 degrees Celsius, but only if we take bold action to reduce CO2 emissions. That will require our two political parties to put aside their differences and work together for the common good. Tennessee Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker are well-­‐suited to lead a bipartisan effort to address climate change. They, along with a majority of the American public and 99 percent of the world’s scientists, accept that climate change is a serious problem caused by human fossil-­‐fuel burning. Both are known as moderates, and both have already displayed a willingness to work with their colleagues across the aisle. (In fact, Sen. Alexander resigned his Republican leadership position in 2011 specifically to work on developing bipartisan compromises on key issues.) They could start by participating in the Climate Change Clearinghouse recently launched by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. Although Boxer is a Democrat, the purpose of her new forum is to provide a place for both parties to share information about the climate problem and craft legislation to address it. Tennesseans, who’ve already suffered the flood of 2010 and the drought and heat of 2011 and 2012, should encourage our two senators to be among the first Republicans to join. As the new clearinghouse members of both parties consider legislation to reduce CO2 emissions, one solution is a consumer-­‐
friendly carbon fee-­‐and-­‐dividend. This puts a steadily-­‐rising fee on carbon-­‐based fuels that would make renewable energy more affordable than fossil fuels, sending a consistent price signal to the marketplace. Returning the revenue to consumers as a dividend would offset rising energy costs as we transition to clean energy. For the future of our children and grandchildren, there is no more important step to take than reducing our emissions from fossil fuels. That requires bipartisan cooperation. Sens. Alexander and Corker should make it their new year’s resolution to champion bipartisan work on climate change. Pam Jones is a member of Nashville Citizens Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130123/OPINION03/301230108/Senators-­‐Lamar-­‐
Alexander-­‐Bob-­‐Corker-­‐must-­‐take-­‐lead-­‐reducing-­‐global-­‐warming CCL FILENAME 2013 01 22 Tennesseean Jones OPED Senators Lamar Alexander Bob Corker must take lead reducing global warming TORONTO, ONTARIO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 21, 2013 Wake up on climate change Re: Ottawa's indifference to the environment can't be ignored, Column, Jan. 14
I applaud Tim Harper’s column for largely by human-­‐induced carbon emissions, characterizing climate change as it should be: and the longer we wait to address it, the more “so alarming that it simply cannot be costly it will be. With unusually extreme ignored.” It is baffling that the Harper weather happening more frequently both government and the Canadian public here at home and around the world, it is continue to pretend that we can afford to do articles like this one that will help Canadians nothing about this enormous problem. to connect the dots and shake out of their Authoritative reports like The National slumber on climate change. Climate Assessment are simply confirming Patrick DeRochie what we have known for years. Climate Toronto change is already happening, it is caused WEB LINK http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1317175-­‐-­‐wake-­‐up-­‐on-­‐climate-­‐change CCL FILENAME 2013 01 21 TorontoStar DeRochie LTE Wake up on climate change RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 20, 2013 Tax carbon In the Jan. 14 editorial “The hot zone,” the encouraging clean technological innovations. author bemoans the fact that the earth is This money can then be distributed to getting hotter. Last year was the hottest year Americans as a tax break or used to pay down on record, and it’s going to continue to get national debt. more uncomfortable as things heat up and It is easy to feel overwhelmed, but we have more Superstorm Sandys strike. the power to make a change for the better, But we can still make a difference. Instead whether it’s supporting the many solar farms of dirtying our air with carbon pollution, we going up in North Carolina or calling our can start cleaning up our act. As Americans, representatives to tell them we support we know how to innovate, and we respond to climate legislation. A tax on carbon will keep market cues. So let’s put a tax on carbon and a America’s climate pure and help us become tariff on carbon reaching our borders. This the world’s clean energy leader. tax will make the old, polluting technology Katie Rose Levin pay for the harm it is doing, while Durham
WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/20/2613817/kate-­‐rose-­‐levin-­‐tax-­‐carbon.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 20 RaleighNewsObserver Levin LTE Tax carbon RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 20. 2013 Solar strides The Jan. 7 editorial “Bright idea” However, even with these incentives, solar beautifully illustrated how beneficial solar power accounts for less than 1 percent of the energy farms are for North Carolina. N.C. has total electric power generation while at the one of the fastest-­‐growing solar energy same time we are one of the top 10 industries in the country. Solar farms provide consumers of electricity in the nation. clean, renewable energy along with boosting Another step we can take to give solar a the productivity of private land. helping hand is to put a price on carbon. This It is impressive how far solar energy has would increase the demand for a blossoming come in just the last few years from a fringe industry that is creating jobs while providing idea to an energy source that is producing us all with the clean energy we desire. more than 13 megawatts of electricity in N.C. Donald Addu every year. Durham WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/20/2613815/donald-­‐addu-­‐solar-­‐strides.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 20 RaleighNewsObserver Addu LTE Solar strides LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 18, 2013 Think last year was hot? Though we in the Bay Area have been these predictions come to life in numerous spared much of the misery felt by other forms, including the devastating Midwest regions of the country, the fact that 2012 was drought and Superstorm Sandy, where the hottest year in recorded American history warmer seas were a factor in its ferocity. does not come as a surprise to those I urge California's representatives to following climate science and news ("Effects support legislation for fees on carbon-­‐based of warming hit U.S. faster than forecast," fuels in which revenues would be distributed Jan. 12). equally to all Americans. This market-­‐based As scientists have predicted for several approach holds the most promise to reduce decades, if America and the world continued greenhouse gas emissions in an equitable and to emit record levels of carbon dioxide into fair manner. the atmosphere, temperatures will continue Michael Konwiak to rise and bring with them increasingly San Francisco variable and extreme weather. We have seen WEB LINK http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor-­‐Jan-­‐18-­‐4203975.php CCL FILENAME 2013 01 18 SanFranChronicle Konwiak LTE Think last year was hot LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 18, 2013 Climate Action The lead article in Friday’s Lawrence on an equitable basis. Seventy percent of Journal-­‐World lets us know that all but one households would actually receive more in Kansas county were declared disaster areas their monthly bonus check than they would due to the extreme drought this past year. pay for the increased cost of energy. This week we also learned that 2012 was the Besides being nonregressive, this revenue-­‐
hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous neutral tax should be appealing to US, with a 55.3 degree average demolishing Republicans since it does not increase the size the previous record, set in 1998, by a full of government. Hopefully Sens. Moran and degree Fahrenheit. Roberts and Rep. Jenkins will lead Kansas and How much evidence do we need that it’s the country to an effective solution to this time to address climate change? The longer looming crisis. we wait, the more painful the consequences. With this legislation we could become a The good news is we can take decisive world leader in the green industry and also action now! Dr. James Hansen, one of the ensure that we have pristine air and water for world’s leading climate scientists, suggests generations to come. America is a can-­‐do implementing carbon fee and dividend nation. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get this legislation. This solution would place a fee on job done for this and future generations! carbon at its source and then distribute the Lynate Pettengill collected funds back to the American people Lawrence WEB LINK http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jan/18/letter-­‐climate-­‐action/?letters_to_editor CCL FILENAME 2013 01 18 LJWorld Pettengill LTE Climate action MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 16, 2013 Advocates must bring Republicans on board James Lenfestey is right ("The A bit harsh, but I think she's right. Can we environment cries for Obama's leadership," get unstuck? To do that, we need to name the Jan. 14), but that's just part of the solution. problem and have a national conversation. It Theda Skocpol, a Harvard scholar, just will take concerned citizens from each of released a report for an upcoming their congressional districts to get the ball symposium "The Politics of America's Fight rolling by writing to their delegates. They can Against Global Warming." Her paper, "Naming start discussions on the likes of a carbon tax the Problem," blames environmental groups or fee and dividend legislation. The for legislative inaction on climate change representatives will listen. Minnesota can because they have not found the arguments lead the way and get its Republican to persuade Republicans and members of the delegation on board. Tea Party movement to act. She suggests that without the support of conservatives, the K. Brian Nowak chance of getting carbon solutions through Maple Plain Congress will be doomed. WEB LINK http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/187214961.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 16 StarTribune Nowak LTE Advocates must bring Republicans on board ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 16, 2013 Enact carbon tax on coal, oil, natural gas A recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers warns that the nation’s infrastructure is in bad repair. A recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers warns that the nation’s infrastructure is in bad repair. Levies, sewers and water systems, bridges, waterways and highways are past their needed age of replacement. Upgrading costs are in the multi-­‐billions and are going unaddressed. As climate change brings us new weather challenges, the nation’s infrastructure needs will necessarily have to compete with the cost of disaster relief: droughts, agricultural losses, floods and storms. It is difficult to see how all these needs can be met even if we had a functional political system. These competing needs cannot be allowed to go unmet, yet we cannot afford all that the future portends without adding to the bloated debt. Therefore, we must act to reduce the likelihood of future climate-­‐related disasters which threaten to drain the public purse and forestall needed public projects. We can speed the transition to clean energy and reduce our use of climate-­‐
changing fossil fuels most quickly, efficiently and effectively if we enact a carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas, levied at the source, and increasing year over year until CO2 ppm are reduced to 1990 levels. This revenue should be returned to the American people as a direct dividend in full or part in order to offset any price increases in basic consumer goods. Jeanne Johnson, 7th Congressional District Citizens Climate Lobby Alexandria, MN WEB LINK http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/101167/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 16 EchoPress Johnson LTE Enact carbon tax on coal, oil, natural gas LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 16, 2013 Hostility to science Re: Jan. 10 editorial, “House science panel wears blinders.” Thank you so much for taking a strong stance against this incredibly dangerous anti-­‐
science attitude in the Republican Party. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is unfit to be leader of anything with science in the name. Republican Party members have backed themselves into a corner over the science of climate change. We need to give them a graceful way to step out of that corner, before their inability to act does any further damage to our planet. One way to do that would be through legislation such as the revenue-­‐
neutral carbon tax, which corrects a major flaw in the market, all without even mentioning the benefits for our climate. Voices such as yours are critical in making it no longer acceptable to talk about climate change and science in this reckless manner and in galvanizing the rest of us to speak up and do something about this worsening crisis. Well done, Editorial Board! Susan Adams Austin WEB LINK http://www.statesman.com/news/news/letters-­‐for-­‐jan-­‐16/nTwnR/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 16 AustinStatesman Adams LTE Hostility to science LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 16, 2013 CLIMATE CHANGE Congress must act to reduce emissions “2012 U.S.’ hottest year on record” (News, Jan. 9) is the latest in a series of news events that have awakened our nation to the harsh reality of climate change. Given what we’ve experienced in the past 12 months — wildfires, drought and Hurricane Sandy — 2013 is the year that Congress must feel the heat to enact legislation that reduces the greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. A steadily rising fee on carbon-­‐based fuels (coal, oil and gas) would speed up the transition to clean sources of energy. Returning the revenue from that fee to consumers would counteract the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with this transition. Through the Ways and Means Committee, Congressmen Tom Price and John Lewis are in a unique position to move such a bill through Congress. How much hotter does it have to get before we act? Steve Valk Communications Director, Citizens Climate Lobby WEB LINK http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/readers-­‐write-­‐jan-­‐16/nTwbr/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 16 AtlantaJC Valk LTE Congress must act to reduce emissions LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 16, 2013 CLIMATE CHANGE Carbon tax would cut reliance on fossil fuels Tom Friedman’s piece, “Fresh off our fiscal cliff, here comes climate cliff” (Opinion, Jan. 11), points up the similarities between our environmental and economic problems — a deadlocked split over by whom, and how payment will be made, for the debts we’ve run up. I agree that we must raise a tax and could drive energy purchases away from fossil sources with a carbon tax. It’s also true that economists of many schools, as well as energy industry leaders, have given lip service to a carbon tax. When will Congress and the president stop the politics long enough to do the difficult work of crafting an effective and fair tax such as this? Peter Peteet Atlanta WEB LINK http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/readers-­‐write-­‐jan-­‐16/nTwbr/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 16 AtlantaJC Peteet LTE Carbon tax would cut reliance on fossil fuels YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 15, 2O13 Charge a carbon emissions fee Like a car lurching down the road, agree that it makes sense to charge a carbon accelerating then braking, the wind industry emissions fee so that clean energies like wind got another burst of speed recently when and solar have continuous support so that Congress passed a last-­‐minute one-­‐year these industries can flourish here. extension of tax incentives. The production This will provide jobs, wean us off foreign tax credit for large-­‐scale wind farms will save oil by using "Made in America" energy, and up to 37,000 jobs, the American Wind energy help us to slow global warming and its Association reported. But damage to the harmful effects. By not "picking the winners," industry has already been done by the threat as Mr. Clark says, the free market will decide of the tax credit program ending. Many which technologies are the winners, as companies have already laid off employees companies always look for the cheapest and and construction of new facilities came to a most efficient methods to make a profit. This standstill. will also encourage innovation to find ways of Tax incentives last year led to a boom in making energy that haven't even been wind power, and new installations dreamed of yet. represented 44 percent of all new electricity I don't know about everyone else, but I capacity created in the U.S. in 2012, according think there are better ways to power the to the Energy Information Administration. world that don't involve digging things up This on-­‐again, off-­‐again support has wind and burning them, while polluting the air and companies hesitant to set up shop in the U.S., water we depend on for life. since they don't know whether we'll be going Mike Omlor through the same ordeal yet again next year. Washington Township Reading Jon Clark's recent letter in the YDR ("Stop fossil fuel subsidies"), I have to WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22377254/charge-­‐carbon-­‐emissions-­‐fee CCL FILENAME 2012 01 15 YorkDailyRecord Omlor LTE Charge a carbon emissions fee LINCOLN, NEBRASKA OPED, JANUARY 15, 2013 Local View: A crash course in climate change By Tim Rinne Lincoln, NE - 29 JUNE 05 - Mug shot of Tim Rinne
Michael Paulsen
"We have less than 10 years to halt the global rise in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences for people and the planet. It is, simply, the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family." -­-­ U.N. Secretary-­General Ban Ki-­moon, Aug. 9, 2009 My "baby girl" turns 30 this month. And though my tongue keeps tripping over the words, I’m "pushing 60." My thoughts, in the New Year chill, have accordingly taken a contemplative turn. I’m thinking about the passage of the generations, the kind of legacy we’re leaving our children and what the future holds in store. As a Baby Boomer, it’s been terrific growing up in the greatest country on earth — the greatest nation in the history of the world. I grew up with the absolute conviction that my life was going to be better than my parents’, that both nature and the heavens (courtesy of NASA’s lunar space program) were at our command and that this was all going to go on forever. I didn’t think twice about getting up in the middle of night to use the bathroom, flicking on the lights and flushing the toilet. I took it for granted as an innate right. Yet just 20 years earlier, my parents had been living on farms in southeastern Nebraska in homes without electricity or indoor plumbing. Now, though, as I pull the space heater a little closer, I’m a lot less confident about this inexorable march of economic progress. In fact, I’m convinced it’s coming to an end. In 1867, when Nebraska became a state, there were 1 billion people on Earth. In 1955, the year I was born, there were fewer than 3 billion. Today, there are more than 7 billion people on the planet. And none of us want to live like my parents lived on the farm in Johnson County, fetching wood and carrying water. We want to live like Donald Trump and Lady Gaga. Go wherever we want to go, buy whatever we want to buy and consume as much as we want to consume. We Husker fans, for instance, think will mean growing more of our food locally nothing of dashing down to Florida to watch and eating seasonally to lower production the Big Red play Georgia in the Capital One and transportation costs. It will mean driving Bowl. Assuming we can afford it, we view it as less in more fuel-­‐efficient vehicles. It will our prerogative. The environmental cost of mean making our homes and businesses making such a trip — our "carbon footprint" more energy efficient to lower our energy for the energy and resource consumption — demand. It will mean development of our never enters the equation. renewable wind and solar resources to keep But the Earth’s strained ecosystem can’t our utility dollars at home and at work in our accommodate this growing demand much communities. And it will mean getting our longer. We’re already approaching "peak oil" publicly owned power districts off of coal as where global consumption of this finite soon as technologically feasible, and resource will outstrip production. And the oil, implementing a carbon fee on the fossil fuel coal and natural gas burned to fuel our high-­‐
industry — with the money rebated to the consumption lifestyles are daily altering the public. climate around us. This is a brave new world we’re on the The evidence is everywhere. Record heat cusp of, and it will not be as lavish or waves and drought (worse even than the profligate. The days of Donald Trump and legendary Dust Bowl). Rampant wildfires. Lady Gaga setting the bar for our quality of Superstorm Sandy. The Department of life are numbered. Defense is so alarmed by what’s happening We have just emerged from the holiday that officials have officially identified climate season. Despite the riot of consumption change as a “national security threat.” And the associated with Christmas shopping, the insurance industry, which is being forced to holidays have traditionally been a time for foot the bill for all the damage from these friends and loved ones to gather together. more frequent and extreme weather events, And that is the community ethic we will need has acknowledged the reality of climate to be extolling in the years ahead, as our change since Hurricane Katrina. consumption levels inevitably drop. Ready or not, we’re about to get a crash Things will never again be as they’ve been. course in climate change. The age of infinite appetite is over. But with And it would be far better for everyone if the company of friends and family and fine — starting now — we tried to get ready, food, it will still be possible to have a good because things aren’t going to be the way Christmas. they were. The high-­‐consumption lifestyle we’ve become accustomed to is permanently Tim Rinne is the state coordinator of winding down. Nebraskans for Peace, the oldest Getting ready for climate change will mean statewide Peace & Justice organization reducing our dependence on carbon fuels and in the United States. the greenhouse emissions they produce. It WEB LINK http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-­‐view-­‐a-­‐crash-­‐course-­‐in-­‐
climate-­‐change/article_53adaecf-­‐1a82-­‐50be-­‐abdd-­‐bb82884de75c.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 15 LincolnJournalStar Rinne OPED Local view -­‐ a crash course in climate change YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 14, 2013 Will Perry help with climate change? The draft U.S. Climate Assessment came out recently. The assessment, put together by dozens of the country's top climate experts, makes clear that if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we are headed towards a devastating 9-­‐ to 15-­‐degree F warming over most of the United States this century with ever-­‐worsening extreme weather, heat waves, flooding and droughts. This comes just after NOAA announced that 2012 was the warmest year since record keeping began in the U.S. Australia is dealing with temperatures so off-­‐the-­‐charts hot that the Australian bureau of meteorology added two new colors to their color coded temperature charts. Wildfires are raging out of control across the entire continent with witnesses reporting seeing "tornadoes of fire." The mega-­‐drought continues in the Midwest, and New Jersey and New York coastal residents continue to clean up after Superstorm Sandy leveled their towns. For the sake of our children and his, I sincerely hope our new Rep. Scott Perry takes a serious look at the science of climate change and reaches out to Democrats across the aisle to work together to find a way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions causing the planet to warm. Porter Hedge York WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22371563/will-­‐perry-­‐help-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐63 CCL FILENAME 2013 01 14 YorkDailyRecord Hedge LTE Will Perry help with climate change
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 14, 2013 It’s Time to Act Although I knew this was coming, your Jan. 9 article "U.S. heat record fell in 2012 / 1998 mark eclipsed by one whole degree" hit me like a 2x4 across the face. How have we let our actions (i.e., fossil fuel burning resulting in carbon emissions) come to the point of effecting this drastic change in our climate without enacting the significant countermeasures needed to reverse this catastrophic trend? Given the politicized nature of climate change, it seems we have a hard time even discussing what (if anything) needs to happen. Last year's record temperatures are obviously not the only evidence in the last 12 months alone of the devastating effects of man-­‐made climate change. Take Hurricane Sandy, massive wildfires in the West and historic droughts affecting not only farmers across the Midwest but now barge traffic along our own Mississippi River as immediate and dire examples. These events point to the fact that we are running out of time and excuses for not doing what must be done to mitigate the climate change. One such effort would be to institute a national, revenue-­‐neutral fee on carbon-­‐
based fuels (i.e., coal, oil and gas) to expedite the transition to clean sources of energy like solar, wind and geothermal. Congress has debated a cap and trade system, but a pure tax on carbon is the cleanest, most effective way to end our cultural and economic addiction to oil. I call on Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker to join the Climate Change Clearinghouse being organized by Sen. Barbara Boxer to discuss just such a measure. Let 2013 be the year that Congress felt enough heat to put a real price on carbon. Brett Norman Memphis WEB LINK http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/jan/14/letter-­‐its-­‐time-­‐act/ CCL FILENAME 2013 01 14 CommercialAppeal Norman LTE Its time to act YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 13, 2013 Get serious about global warming The continental U.S. hit an all-­‐time temperature high in 2012, up 3.2 percent degrees F over the 20th century average, the National Cimatic Data Center just announced. Globally, the earth has warmed 1.6 degrees F in the past 50 years, 2000-­‐2009 being the warmest decade on record. Greenhouse gas emissions are up 58 percent from 1990, as opposed to a hoped for 54 percent cut. More than 100 major national and international science organizations say global warming is real, largely man-­‐made, growing worse and a threat to our planet. Wild, random and intense weather -­‐-­‐ including Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy -­‐-­‐ is more and more dotting the earth scape. The U.S. military has adopted strategic and contingency plans to address worldwide global warming events. Major reinsurance companies are now specifically writing global warming clauses into their policies. The U.S. Agricultural Department last year updated its U.S. planting zone guide to reflect warmer growing seasons. Britain's Royal Society, a preeminent scientific organization founded by Isaac Newton, says if we do not change our energy policies, we face a "hellish future." Many GOP leaders are now believers. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio's John Kasich. Former South Carolina GOP congressman Bob Inglis began an initiative to use conservative free-­‐market principals to fight global warming. California's retiring Rep. David Dreier says, "Climate change is a fact of life ... we must address this tremendous challenge accordingly." Deal us all in. President Obama needs to muscle capitalism, science and politics together to forge both a strong economy and a safe planet. We won't come back from an environmental cliff. John Currie Mechanicsburg
WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22366160/get-­‐serious-­‐about-­‐global-­‐warming CCL FILENAME 2013 01 13 YorkDailyRecord Currie LTE Get serious about global warming EDITORIAL, JANUARY 13, 2013 Six big goals for new year The State Journal editorial board will push for job growth, fair political maps, more graduates, lower emissions, clean lakes and an independent judiciary. More jobs The economy is still on the mend. Job growth is slow, and unemployment remains too high. Wisconsin and the Madison region must do more to improve their economic competitiveness. The Legislature should prioritize a venture capital bill to lure more private investment to small business entrepreneurs across the state. Small business people with innovative ideas will create most of Wisconsin's new jobs. The Madison area must continue to cooperate and compete as one region, paying special attention to the needs of existing employers who want to expand. Fair political maps Now is the time to fix Wisconsin's rigged redistricting process. And the focus should be on the future, not the past. That's the only way this good government reform can succeed. Yes, the Republicans who run the statehouse just drew new lines for Assembly, Senate and congressional districts to their favor. But the Democrats would have done the same thing had they been in charge. Both parties should set aside their scheming and agree to have a nonpartisan agency or citizen panel draw fair voting district maps after the 2020 census. It's easier to change the process now because most of today's lawmakers will no longer be in office a decade from now. Gov. Scott Walker should give the effort a boost with his endorsement. Higher graduation rates Wisconsin's four-­‐year graduation rate of 87 percent ties for second in the nation. But our state has the third highest graduation gap between white and black students. Madison, for example, graduates barely half of its black students. It's a tragedy that demands action — not more of the same. With the school district's blessing, the Urban League of Greater Madison just launched an intriguing afterschool program at two middle schools to help struggling students. The achievement gap promises to be a big issue in Madison School Board races this spring. At the state level, Wisconsin just won a "Race to the Top" grant from the Obama administration to improve early learning and to better track student data. New strategies, not just new money, are needed. Lower carbon emissions Wisconsin and the nation just experienced the warmest year on record. Chronic droughts over time would spell disaster for our farmers and economy. The State Journal editorial board called for a spirited response to global warming six years ago. We'll continue to tout clean energy, efficiency and research. The issue only has become more pressing, with scientists warning more action is needed now to reduce greenhouse gasses from smokestacks, tailpipes and other sources. The United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions to a 20-­‐year low last year, largely because of greater reliance on cleaner burning natural gas. That should continue. But broader solutions are needed that benefit the environment and economy. Clean lakes The drought was good for one thing: It reduced the amount of phosphorus washing into Madison lakes. Now we know how wonderful the lakes can be during the summer. But when heavy rain returns, so will the thick weeds, dangerous algae and stinky green muck. The problem hasn't been solved. Yet local officials and citizen groups in rural and urban areas are cooperating in new ways to find a lasting solution. We'll cheer their efforts and continue to assess progress. The health and beauty of our lakes — as well as Madison's image as a great place to live and work — are at stake. Merit selection of high court Another nasty, money-­‐soaked Wisconsin Supreme Court election is right around the corner. And one of the candidates in the February primary is a lemon law attorney and declared partisan who uses foul language in online videos. The other two candidates are easily identified as a conservative and a liberal. Wisconsin should seek an independent judiciary instead. It should replace high court elections with merit-­‐based appointments that rely on a citizen panel insulated as much as possible from politics. Mud-­‐slinging judicial elections are turning our most respected judges into the worst of politicians. It's gotten so bad that one justice accused another of trying to choke her. Merit selection will bring respect and impartiality back to the state's top court. WEB LINK http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/editorial/six-­‐big-­‐goals-­‐for-­‐new-­‐
year/article_d4934ae0-­‐5ce0-­‐11e2-­‐a131-­‐0019bb2963f4.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 13 WiscStateJournal Ed Board EDITORIAL Six big goals for new year EDITORIAL, JANUARY 13, 2013 A sweltering planet’s agenda THE NATIONAL Oceanic and the economy, putting decisions about the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) direction of energy and manufacturing in announced last week that 2012 was the the hands of consumers and businesses warmest year on record in the contiguous that meet their demands, not Congress United States. By far — a whole degree and interest groups that lobby Fahrenheit. lawmakers. When people must pay Scientists can’t yet know to what something for their pollution, they pollute extent man-­‐made emissions influenced less and invest in cleaner alternatives. A the heat and calamitous drought. But the carbon tax would provide more certainty result is nevertheless ominous, “a huge to industry and investors who currently exclamation point on the end of several can only guess at what climate policy will decades of fairly consistent warming,” as look like year to year. NOAA’s Deke Arndt put it. The year offers But, given the dim debate on global a vision of what will happen more often warming in Congress, another on a planet that is heating — slowly and consequence of a carbon tax might be fitfully, not every year warmer than the more appealing to policymakers: revenue. last, but inexorably. Resources for the Future estimates that a There is still uncertainty. Though they tax set at $25 per ton of carbon have a range of estimates, scientists still dioxide would raise $125 billion annually do not know exactly how sensitive the — more than would be saved by global climate system is to human carbon eliminating the mortgage interest tax emissions and exactly how steep the long-­‐
deduction. Even if much of that were term temperature line will be. Predicting rebated to ensure that low-­‐income the consequences of a given temperature households weren’t unduly hurt — the rise is also difficult. That’s an argument right policy — a sizable chunk would be not for doing nothing but for managing left to shrink the deficit or ease the major the risks, spending now to avoid the tax reform that Washington’s leaders likelihood of much greater costs later, as have been promising. any good business would do in the face of Implementing a national carbon tax certain threats of uncertain magnitude. would be only one step toward The smartest hedge would be a addressing climate change, a problem that national carbon tax. It would marshal the must ultimately be dealt with globally. market’s power to wring carbon out of But it would be a big one. WEB LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-­‐sweltering-­‐planets-­‐
agenda/2013/01/12/2b8c5ef6-­‐5aaf-­‐11e2-­‐beee-­‐6e38f5215402_story.html CCL FILE NAME: 2013 01 13 WashPost EDITORIAL A sweltering planet’s agenda LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 13, 2013 Untitled letter The following is in response to the printed article "U.S. roasts to record hottest year by far": It almost isn't fair that the warning sign we all expect global warming, hotter days, don't frequent us as badly as other places thanks to our wonderful proximity to the sea. It's too easy to feel that the world isn't changing when your home, and thus your world, isn't changing or changes very slowly around you. San Diego can't escape the greater effects of climate change though; increased droughts, fires, ocean acidification, and sea-­‐level rise will cost America's finest city dearly. We must get behind a solution, like a carbon tax. Work the market to gradually pay for the change now, instead of paying for all the damages later. Tristan M. Carland San Diego WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2013 01 13 SanDiegoUT Carland LTE Untitled letter in response to “U.S. roasts” TRENTON, N.J. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 12, 2013 Plan for the world we’ll leave our children I write in reference to Thomas Friedman’s column “The market and Mother Nature” and the letter by New Jersey Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer, “Consider climate’s effects on generations to come,” both published Jan. 11. Mr. Friedman’s column and Ms. Spencer’s letter spoke both to my head and my heart. Tom Friedman is right: We need a fiscal policy that will curb carbon dioxide emissions. Congress should enact a gradually rising fee on the carbon content of fuels, beginning immediately. I urge all New Jersey readers to press their representatives for this measure. Letter writer Grace Spencer makes a point that touches my heart: We must take this action for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We must leave them a livable world, because we love them. Ellie Whitney East Windsor WEB LINK http://www.nj.com/times-­‐
opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_579.html CCL FILENAME 2012 01 12 TrentonTimes Whitney E LTE Plan for the world we’ll leave our children MY VIEW OPED, JANUARY 11, 2013 Climate change is indeed a crisis and is very real Pam McVety Being a good debater does not mean your facts or conclusions are correct. That was the case Tuesday night, when James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute, debated our own Dr. Ray Bellamy, a longtime physician in our community on the reality of climate change. Taylor is among the best that money can buy. He is paid by the Heartland Institute, a prominent free-­‐market think tank that promotes skepticism about man-­‐made climate change. He is a confident, articulate debater and writer who cherry-­‐picks information and is skilled at providing misinformation in the guise of facts. Bellamy presented only scientifically verifiable facts about the reality of climate change and spoke as a volunteer. Even though no one’s mind probably was changed during the debate, a number of attendees had their viewpoint about climate change not being a crisis confirmed. The audience experienced the climate denial machine at its best. Taylor framed the debate something like this: • It has been warmer before, so this is part of a natural cycle. • The warming is not caused by humans, but by solar output. • Warming is good for us. • Humans can’t do anything about the warming. Here is my response to those four points. • Yes, the world has been warmer, and it was due to natural causes, including excessive amounts of CO2, but it was the distant past, well before cities and communities had developed. When the world was warmer, what is now Florida was under water, as were the locations of all the major coastal cities around the world. The world’s climate has been like a roller coaster, swinging between a solid ball of ice to a scorching hothouse, but that doesn’t mean the current warming is part of a natural cycle. • The idea that the current warming is not caused by humans, but by solar ouput, is wrong. Carbon dioxide has a much larger warming influence than changes in the sun. This has been quantified by climate scientists. It is well understood that atmospheric carbon dioxide holds heat, and we are now experiencing higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we have in the last 600,000 years. The sun’s output does vary a little bit, slightly affecting the temperature, but CO2, which is on a steady upward trajectory, exerts a much larger influence. When CO2 has been high, so has the temperature, and when CO2 is low, the temperature is lower. The two are tightly correlated. During the last decade, when we experienced the warmest temperatures on record, solar activity was depressed. • Taylor’s statement that warming is good for us is foolish. The problems associated with the small amount of global warming so far are huge and expensive. The New York Times reported Wednesday that, last year, the warmest year on record in the United States, a drought covered 61 percent of the country, killing corn and soybean crops, sending prices spiraling. We had 11 weather disasters exceeding a threshold of $1 billion in damages. These are exactly the kinds of extreme weather climate scientists have been predicting will happen with our warming planet. • Contrary to what Taylor implied, humans do have the capacity to reduce the temperature. If we eliminate or dramatically reduce our burning of fossil fuels, once the excessive CO2 in the atmosphere dissipates over the next 100 to 200 years, our global temperatures will drop, but over a much longer period. Seven billion of us are warming this planet, and 7 billion of us have the opportunity to reduce the warming. There are alternatives to fossil fuels, and the future well being of our planet is worth the costs. So Taylor’s message to us was, why worry about a warming planet, because the sun is causing the warming, it has been warmer before and it is good for us. This is utter nonsense and dangerous. Because of people like him, who are small in number but extremely well-­‐funded with the task of causing doubt about climate change, our government has failed to take action. This behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible. Thank you, Dr. Bellamy, for telling us the facts about the reality of climate change. Pam McVety is a biologist and climate literacy educator. WEB LINK http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013301140005 CCL FILENAME 2013 01 11 TallahasseeDem McVety OPED Climate change is indeed a crisis and is very real SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH EDITORIAL, JANUARY 10, 2013 The hottest year Time to end climate change denial One degree Fahrenheit. That’s all. That’s the margin by which the average national temperature in the United States in 2012 broke the record for the highest ever recorded. But before anyone dismisses the new record as being a small difference, remember that the normal variance for the nation’s average temperature, year to year, is measured in tiny fractions of a degree. The range since the late 19th century has only ranged between 50 and 54.3 degrees. Until 2012, that is, when it reached a record 55.3 degrees. So the one-­‐degree difference is properly referred to as "shattering" the old mark, in the same sense that a difference of only half of a second could honestly be said to have shattered a previous best for, say, the 100-­‐meter dash. This new data point, combined with news that Salt Lake City’s average temperature last year was a full 3.8 degrees above normal, should help to brush aside any lingering denial of the facts of global climate change and focus our national attention squarely on what we are going to do about it. Of course, it is unlikely to do any such thing. As the muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair once remarked, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This is the case with far too many people of wealth and influence. And that includes far too many of those who hold positions of power in Utah, a state that is lagging far behind its peers in the development of the many forms of renewable energy that do not increase the world’s output of carbon dioxide and other climate-­‐changing compounds. The look back at 2012 shows, in so many ways, not only that our climate is changing, but that the effects of only small differences in average temperatures can have devastating effects on the world. A killer drought in America’s corn belt. Declining water levels in the Great Lakes and other significant bodies of fresh water. Superstorm systems that move west to east, shattering cities and crops across the Plains, and east to west, bringing catastrophic rains, waves and power outages to New York and New Jersey. So what should have been a marathon approach to our energy needs, developing over time the technologies, policies and laws that would shift from a carbon-­‐based economy to a renewable one, is about to become, in historic terms, a sprint. It is past time for the United States and the various state governments to be about such measures as carbon taxes, cap-­‐and-­‐trade regimes and requirements that electric utilities provide minimum percentages of their output from renewable sources. Because it is real. And it does matter. WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55599773-­‐82/average-­‐record-­‐climate-­‐degrees.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2013 01 10 SaltLakeTribune Ed Board EDITORIAL The hottest year LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 10, 2013 Climate Danger (2 letters) Re "Climate change won't wait," Opinion, Jan. 6 It is hard to understand President Obama's stand on climate change. His Energy secretary, Nobel laureate Steven Chu, said four years ago that, if we don't dramatically slow global warming, "we're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." He went on to question the viability of California cities. Obama is not showing the type of resolve that Chu's statement would seem to demand. Obama could get out front on climate change and tap George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's secretary of State, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a couple of guys with pretty strong conservative business credentials, to lead the way on instituting a federal carbon tax. Obama's preference for subsidies, cap-­‐
and-­‐trade and federal policing fall short of a carbon tax's clear message. A carbon tax done right is foundational. Fossil fuel producers pay, the public receives the tax dividend, and carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall immediately. Mark Tabbert Newport Beach McKibben is right to take the Obama administration to task for its pathetic leadership on climate change. More intense floods, tornadoes and hurricanes are killing Americans today. Republicansmay not like to compromise, but nature neither can nor will. But while the Obama administration is surely culpable for failing to advocate, the Republican Party is guilty of making advocacy necessary. The Romney campaign's padded internal polls made its leaders feel better, and they may have cost them the election. The same tendency to distort reality has been in overdrive on the topic of the climate for decades. In this case, what is at stake is not just an election. It is our very lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Daniel Richter San Diego WEB LINK http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-­‐le-­‐0110-­‐thursday-­‐climate-­‐change-­‐
20130110,0,1772760.story CCL FILENAME 2013 01 10 LATimes Tabbert & Richter LTE Climate danger OPED, JANUARY 10, 2013 The beauty of a carbon tax – and its exemption for the poor Taxing greenhouse gas pollution through a carbon tax lets the market, not government, pick the winners. Big polluters like electrical power plants would be encouraged to use cleaner energy. And a simple tax exemption could lower the costs passed on to poor Americans. By Paul Boudreaux Smoke rises in this time exposure image from the stacks of the La Cygne Generating Station coal-­‐fired power plant in La Cygne, Kan. on Jan. 19, 2012. Op-­‐ed contributor Paul Boudreaux says a carbon tax would encourage consumers 'to make important choices – such as adjusting their thermostats, changing their light bulbs, or refusing to do so and paying the tax.' Charlie Riedel/AP/File Gulfport, Florida A carbon tax is, remarkably, back in the political debate. Three years after President Obama in effect abandoned a “cap and trade” proposal after opponents effectively mocked it as “cap and tax,” his re-­‐election has made it politically safe again to utter the word “tax.” Some lawmakers are considering a charge on the air pollution emissions of carbon, which is the leading greenhouse gas that causes global climate change. If that were to happen, the remaining policy challenge would be to impose the tax fairly on the American public, especially on people with low incomes. The policy arguments for a carbon tax are compelling. Economists have convinced the environmental community that market-­‐
oriented systems, as opposed to inflexible commands, are the best way to regulate. The simplest and most efficient way to change people’s behavior is to tax them; everyone is then encouraged to look for efficient ways to avoid the taxed activity. One of the many benefits of taxing pollution is that government does not have to make any of the difficult choices inherent in subsidizing alternative energy – solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biomass, or nuclear – a dilemma that was painfully proven through the Obama administration’s half-­‐billion-­‐dollar subsidy of the ill-­‐fatedSolyndra (though most of the federal clean-­‐tech investments have not failed). With a tax, the market, not the government, picks the winners. A carbon tax would hit big polluters, most notably electrical power producers. They would be encouraged to eschew carbon-­‐laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas, or even cleaner sources of energy. But they would not be mandated to do so; each producer would make judgments based on its own criteria and supply structures. Both taxes and source conversions would be expensive, and these costs would be passed on to consumers. This is the nub of the political objections to a tax: It would eventually be borne by consumers. A benefit of consumers paying for the tax is that they would be encouraged to make important choices – such as adjusting their thermostats, changing their light bulbs, or refusing to do so and paying the tax. As with any tax on consumption, however, poorer Americans would suffer more than wealthier ones. A simple exemption, however, could make the tax burden much lighter for poorer Americans, while at the same time encouraging even greater conservation. The idea is simple: Each household would be exempted from the tax for a modest amount of electricity per month or year; the exemption would be most effective if the system also imposed only minimal usage charges for electricity below the cutoff. The system would recognize almost all households need to use some electricity, but that consumption beyond the minimum would be taxed. It is no surprise that poorer households tend to use less electricity than richer ones – in large part because they live in smaller dwellings. Apartment households use on average only about half the electricity of detached single-­‐family home dwellers; among other factors, apartment buildings help insulate each unit. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, dwellings of 500 square feet or smaller used fewer than 5,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, or less than half that consumed by most big houses. If each household were given a 5,000 kWh yearly tax exemption, households who live in apartments, small houses, and mobile homes would typically pay little for their electricity. But households with bigger carbon “footprints,” who are mostly middle-­‐class or affluent people, would pay much more. In addition to helping the poor, a simple exemption would encourage energy conservation in an important but overlooked area – the mushrooming size of American houses. While the number of people in a typical household has shrunk in recent decades (more than half of all households now consist of just one or two persons), house sizes have ballooned – the average new house in the 2000s was more than 2,400 square feet, compared to less than 1,800 square feet in the 1970s. Cheap electricity has been one reason. A carbon tax with an exemption, by contrast, would spur a reversal of this trend. Americans who love big houses and consuming electricity would be free to act on their desires – only they would have to pay to do so. The solution would be both efficient and highly American. Paul Boudreaux is a professor at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport and Tampa,Florida. WEB LINK http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0110/The-­‐beauty-­‐of-­‐a-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐
and-­‐its-­‐exemption-­‐for-­‐the-­‐poor CCL FILENAME 2013 01 10 ChrSciMonitor Boudreaux OPED The beauty of a carbon tax and its exemption for the poor NORTHERN NEW JERSEY COUNTIES LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 8, 2013 Untitled letter Regarding "A 'very wacky' year for weather hurts people, economies" (Page A-­1, Jan. 1): At a time when climate change deniers continue to obfuscate the issue and deliberately sow confusion, it's refreshing to read the truth. It's not too late to mitigate climate change. Many economists of all political persuasions agree that a revenue-­‐neutral tax on carbon-­‐
based fuels at the source would be a good plan. When we pay more for the "bads," we give the "goods" such as clean renewable energy a chance in the market. Revenue-­‐
neutral means that proceeds from the carbon fee, or tax, are returned right to households. We need to get moving on solutions. Lynn Dash Lincroft
WEB LINK http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/185972492_The_Record__Letters__Jan__8__2013.html?c
=y&page=3 CCL FILENAME 2013 01 08 NorthJerseyRecord Dash L LTE [need to put in a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax] TORONTO, ONTARIO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 6, 2012 Pitting environment against economy (3 letters) Re: Environment Canada survey asked Canadians about carbon tax, oil exports, Jan. 2 Frankly, I’m surprised that only 4-­‐in-­‐10 respondents disagreed with a statement proposing implementation of a carbon tax that includes the warning, “even though it means increasing the cost of things like gas and groceries for consumers.” The statement seems somewhat disingenuous in its one-­‐sided delivery— almost presupposing a negative response. I wonder what the response would have been if the statement had read: “Canada needs to implement a federal carbon tax to promote a low-­‐carbon economy, which will generate high-­‐quality green jobs, protect our environment, reduce health and insurance costs and reduce our exposure to volatile oil prices. Note that all fee revenues will be returned to Canadian citizens to offset an inevitable increase in fossil fuel energy costs.” Camille Loxley Toronto One gets the impression, given the form of a June 2012 survey and the Harper government’s actions subsequent to its completion, that the objective of this survey was not so much to understand the thoughts of Canadians as to exploit them. The statement on carbon tax in particular supports an ongoing insidious argument trumpeted by Stephen Harper that falsely pits environment against economy. In this example there is no mention of the myriad of benefits a carbon tax would bring through a reduced use of fossil fuels — only negative connotations. It almost seems to be testing public reaction to a crafted message. Hardly honest, accurate or representative. Ian Edwards Toronto Re: Bad year for environment, Editorial, Jan. 2 In chipping away our environmental protections, the Harper government is undermining its own credibility. Conservatives are supposed to be excellent stewards of the land. Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government actually took climate change seriously. Many conservative economists currently support a carbon tax as a means to transition to a clean energy economy. Who exactly then is this Conservative government representing? Cheryl McNamara Toronto WEB LINK http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1310784-­‐-­‐pitting-­‐environment-­‐against-­‐
economy CCL FILENAME 2013 01 06 TorontoStar Loxley & Edwards & McNamara 3 LTE Pitting environment against economy LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 4, 2013 Transportation-­infrastructure plans to address climate change Need for swift action I am a strong proponent of a carbon tax to address the climate-­‐related costs of using fossil fuels [“Use carbon tax to fix transportation,” Opinion, Jan. 3]. I also recognize that carbon taxes are at least somewhat regressive (though to what degree is debatable,) and have favored a revenue-­‐
neutral carbon tax as a way to internalize the external costs of fossil fuel use. But the point that Yoram Bauman and Ian Siadak makes is well-­‐taken: We all have a reality problem and the sooner we wake up to it and seek a comprehensive solution, the better chance we have of averting an even larger climate crisis than is already upon us. Fran Koehler Seattle WEB LINK http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/northwestvoices/2020049510_transclimchange4lets.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 04 SeattleTimes Koehler LTE Transportation-­‐infrastructure plans to address climate change HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA OPED, JANUARY 2, 2013 There's no greater threat to America's children than climate change Climate Change is the Biggest Threat to American Six-­Year-­Olds By Glen Retief This month, two media firestorms terrified American parents with apocalyptic visions of what the future might hold for their kindergarteners. In one, ammunition designed to tear apart bone and tissue snuffed out the lives of twenty children and six adults in an elementary school in Connecticut. And in the other apocalyptic, all-­‐
consuming news story, the United Nations climate change summit in Doha failed to secure any commitments to speed up reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are roasting the planet. What? You missed that second story? Sadly, the climate conference in Doha, which concerned nothing less than the fate of the world, merited scant coverage in American media. Does this make any sense? Which of these two events will actually have a greater impact on the dangers facing today’s elementary school children — not to mention the 1.8 billion humans currently below the age of 15? In no way do I mean to downplay the tragic events that happened last month in Newtown. But consider the backdrop to the Doha conference: A few weeks before the international climate change summit, new research by business consultancy giant PwC found that without drastic new carbon cuts, the world was on track for 11 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by 2100. This confirmed a large-­‐
scale study published in 2009 by 31 researchers from seven different countries in the Global Carbon Project, which likewise found the world directly on track for a 6C rise. If we keep on our current path, what kind of world are today’s six-­‐year-­‐olds from Connecticut likely to inhabit? The question is obviously speculative, but Mark Lyndas, a respected environmental journalist, pored over thousands of published studies and computer models in the libraries of Oxford University to come up with the data for his bestselling book, “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” — later a National Geographic movie. The following descriptions synthesize his findings with the projections of the Global Carbon Project, PwC, and an important recent lecture given by Kevin Anderson, the British government’s climate change advisor. Based on this research, today’s Connecticut kindergarteners would likely, in their 30s and 40s, be looking at maps of the United States showing a vast desert stretching over what used to be the prairie-­‐
cornfield states — Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. In their Connecticut summer houses, today’s Newtown kindergarteners would be running air conditioners against weeks of 100-­‐110 degree scorchers. Sandy-­‐
like megastorms would be common. Food would be much more expensive: a box of Mueller’s spaghetti, made from wheat that can no longer be grown in continental Europe, might cost $20 or more in today’s dollars. Millions of developing-­‐world people would be starving to death. By their 50s, in the 2060’s, the situation would have greatly worsened. Today’s kindergarteners will likely have watched reports of the whole Amazonian rainforest collapsing in fire and destruction. Permafrost melt in Siberia would release billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, spiraling global warming upwards. In their 70s and 80s, if the worst climate “tipping points” occur, this American generation would be living in an Earth hotter than at any time for 55 million years. The seas would be acidic and devoid of fish. With much of the world uninhabitable, civilization itself could start to unravel, and these erstwhile kindergarteners would have to worry whether their own children would even be able to biologically survive. All is not doom and gloom, however. Avoiding this mind-­‐boggling catastrophe is surprisingly easy, if we act quickly and decisively. Renowned climate scientist James Hansen — one of the first researchers to discover global warming — is among many who believe a progressively rising tax on carbon could rapidly unleash the power of private enterprise to jump-­‐start the renewable energy sector and greatly reduce anticipated warming over the coming century. This tax would be refunded to American families to help them cope with rising energy bills. A tariff applied to imported goods from coal-­‐
burning countries like China would prevent American industries from being placed at a competitive disadvantage. With solar and wind power cheaper than fossil fuels, investors would find it more profitable to invest in clean technology, rather than fossil fuels, to generate electricity. Consumers would look for ways to be more energy efficient. Electric and hybrid vehicles would become attractive choices. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions will subside to levels that are safe and sustainable, giving us a chance to stay within the 2 degrees C of warming needed to avoid catastrophic consequences. There’s no question that, for our kids, we need to do something about guns, about mental illness, perhaps even about violence in the media. For any parent genuinely concerned about her child’s future well-­‐being, however, few actions may be more important than contacting President Obama and members of Congress to demand decisive progress towards a carbon tax. U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-­‐Chester County, a member of the Ways and Means committee, is in a special position to make a difference on this issue. Glen Retief is an associate professor of nonfiction writing at Susquehanna and a member of Citizens Climate Lobby WEB LINK http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/op-­‐
ed_theres_no_greater_threat_to_americas_children_than_climate_change.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 03 PatriotNews Retief OPED Theres no greater threat to Americas children than climate change YORK, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 2, 2013 Stop fossil fuel subsidies It's funny how when we read an article To further skew the playing field toward about subsidies for the wind industry there fossil fuels, the fossil fuels industry isn't always is a quote from a politician or required to pay for the damages they cause to someone with ties to the fossil fuels industry society, including climate change and air and saying something to the effect "after 20 years water pollution. We supposedly live in a "free of federal support, wind should be able to market economy," let's start acting like it. We stand on its own" ("Will wind tax credit blow can eliminate all subsidies, including wind, away?" YDR, Dec. 23). We never seem to solar, oil, natural gas, etc., if we start making admit to the fact that the fossil fuel industry the fossil fuels industry pay for their damages has been enjoying subsidies for some time to society. Not doing so is a failure of the free now, with President Obama saying in his market. 2012 State of the Union speech "we There are several ways to address market subsidized oil companies for a century now." failures. Subsidies are one way, regulations After 100 years of federal support, the fossil are another. Given the Republicans' dislike of fuels industry should stand on its own as well, regulation and "picking winners," a shouldn't it? conservative, small-­‐government, free market The wind industry, to its great credit, came solution to climate change is a fee on carbon up with a plan to eliminate its own subsidies: emissions with 100 percent of the revenue "The American Wind Energy Association returned to every household. The revenue-­‐
(AWEA) sent a letter to congressional leaders neutral fee doesn't increase the size of accepting a six-­‐year phase-­‐down of its vital government and lets the market correct what production tax credit (PTC) in return for economists call "the mother of all market getting it extended at 100 percent of its failures," climate change. present value for projects started next year Jon Clark and 90 percent for projects placed in service Conewago Township in 2014." Where is the fossil fuels industry plan to eliminate its own subsidies? WEB LINK http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_22298268/stop-­‐fossil-­‐fuel-­‐subsidies CCL FILENAME 2013 01 02 YorkDailyRecord Clark LTE Stop fossil fuel subsidies LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 1, 2013 A better carbon-tax policy
The Dec. 31 editorial “California’s climate-­‐
in other taxes. This would protect low-­‐ and change experiment” did a good job moderate-­‐income families while avoiding the highlighting some of the pitfalls of California’s divisive question of politicians handing cap-­‐and-­‐trade law. Another core problem themselves a new revenue stream. with that law is that, while the cap on So why not implement this simpler, more greenhouse gas emissions is fixed, the price transparent and more market-­‐friendly policy? for those emissions is not. Without a Political courage, or the lack thereof. predictable price signal, the private market Lawmakers fear the ire of anti-­‐tax groups and will not invest in the innovative solutions that media personalities more than they fear the would effectively slash the use of fossil fuels. future devastation of climate change. It’s up A better approach would be to impose a to us, the American citizens, to let them know defined carbon tax on the fossil-­‐fuel it’s time for an attitude adjustment. suppliers, with a set annual increase, and Rick Knight then return all the collected fees to the public Brookfield, Ill. in the form of direct payments or reductions WEB LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-­‐better-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐
policy/2013/01/01/9a243b78-­‐5365-­‐11e2-­‐abc4-­‐3d33329b6128_story.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 01 WashingtonPost Knight LTE A better carbon-­‐tax policy EDITORIAL, JANUARY 1, 2013 A 'very wacky' year for weather hurts people, economies By James M. O’Neill, Staff Writer From the rampage of superstorm Sandy to the warmest average temperature ever recorded, extreme weather harassed New Jersey throughout 2012. There was even a rare derecho — a line of intense thunderstorms that swept through in June with wind gusts of 80 mph. But the state was hardly alone: The worst drought in a half-­‐century parched the central United States. Intense floods ravaged West Africa. Oddly timed typhoons hit the eastern Pacific. An extreme cold snap chilled Europe, and dry conditions seared India and eastern Europe. The list goes on. “It was a very extreme weather year, a very wacky weather year,” said Jeff Weber, an atmospheric scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. “And we had many contrasting extreme events. Climate change is definitely something we need to pay attention to.” Some dismiss global warming or question whether humans are to blame for climate change, but for the large majority of climate experts, the evidence is convincing. And the impact of 2012’s extreme weather has had an indelible impact on people and economies — from the billions of dollars in damage caused by Sandy, and the respiratory illnesses worsened in the American Southwest by drought-­‐driven wildfires to the more than 1,000 deaths in the Philippines from Typhoon Bhopa. While scientists say it’s hard to link a single weather event to climate change, a changing climate can exacerbate any given weather pattern. Many of those contrasting patterns — record warmth in the U.S., freezing cold in Europe — can be explained by changes in how the jet stream flowed, experts say. New research by some scientists, including a Rutgers University climatologist, is trying to determine how much of the jet stream’s altered behavior was caused by another of the year’s striking developments — the shrinking of Arctic sea ice to the smallest span ever recorded. Warmest since 1895 Globally, 2012 is likely to rank among the 10 warmest years on record. Closer to home, it’s also projected to be the warmest on record in the continental U.S. dating back to 1895, about 3.3 degrees above average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And it was the warmest calendar year in New Jersey. All of that extreme weather led to extreme results. The Midwest drought, for example, not only affected farmers and drove up wheat prices, it caused the Mississippi River to drop so low that barge companies found it difficult to ship goods. Dry conditions in the Southwest and Colorado prompted the worst wildfire season on record. The same day that Colorado Springs recorded its highest temperature ever — 101 degrees — one of the most damaging fires broke out. “The climate dice are now loaded,” said James E. Hansen, a Columbia University professor and NASA climate change expert. “Wildfires and droughts are consequences of these increased heat waves.” Even a lingering pine beetle epidemic in the Southwest was exacerbated by the weather, as the warmer winter enabled the pests to remain alive. The beetles, in turn, helped fuel the wildfires by causing entire hillsides of trees to die. Those stubborn fires also created hazy conditions and kept particulates in the air, aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions. “People in my family developed a cough because of it — it was like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day,” Weber said. “It was pretty depressing. It was a tragic summer.” Some of the most dramatic and potentially significant weather events occurred in the Arctic. For starters, the size of the snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere hit a new record low in June, according to the NOAA. “Basically we’re losing snow cover earlier and earlier in the spring,” explained David Robinson, New Jersey’s state climatologist and a Rutgers professor. The extent of Arctic summer sea ice also set a record low in September, as measured by satellite images dating to 1979. “We don’t believe the sea ice level has been this low in 100,000 years,” Robinson said. Arctic warning And temperatures grew so warm that on a single day in July, about 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet experienced some melting. The ice that does form is thinner than before. In the past, about 70 percent of the Arctic was covered by ice that survived more than one year without melting, but now only 35 to 40 percent fits that category, Robinson said. Since World War II, Arctic temperatures have increased at more than twice the global rate, and the extent of summer Arctic sea ice has declined by 40 percent in the past 30 years. That translates into about 1.3 million square miles of ice cover lost, a region roughly equivalent to 42 percent of the surface area of the U.S. mainland, according to Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at Rutgers’ Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences. The loss of sea ice and spring snow matters because both are bright surfaces that reflect the sun’s energy. Ice that has developed over the years often has more ridges and is whiter than newer ice, making it better able to reflect light, Robinson said. With more darker surfaces exposed — in both the open ocean and on barren land — the Arctic absorbs more of the sun’s energy as heat. That promotes more melting, and leads to more rapid Arctic warming. This has potential ramifications for weather in other parts of the globe, said Francis. It’s a phenomenon scientists call “Arctic amplification.” Normally, the jet stream — a narrow band of strong wind that moves west to east about 6 to 9 miles above the Earth’s surface — gets its energy from the difference in the temperatures between the northern and middle latitudes. But as the Arctic air warms faster than areas farther south, the difference in temperatures between those latitudes decreases, weakening the jet stream. And when the jet stream weakens, it follows a more meandering path, like a lazy river, with more dramatic curves — slowing weather systems. As a result, extreme weather patterns could linger longer, locking in hot, dry weather over one location or cool, wet weather over another — thus heightening January and early February. The more droughts or flooding. sluggish jet stream also failed to push “Popular perceptions of the Arctic as a superstorm Sandy out to sea — instead distant, icy, cold place that has little relevance pulling it toward the Jersey Shore. to those outside the region are being “We know that, overall, the atmosphere is challenged,” said Martin Jeffries, co-­‐editor of warming and its moisture content is the annual Arctic Report Card produced by increasing, both of which provide additional the NOAA. energy for storms,” Francis said. “I think it’s Indeed, climatologists say the more getting harder and harder to say that climate pronounced curves of the jet stream were change isn’t playing a role in the increasing responsible for both the drought and the heat frequency and intensity of extreme events that beset the Midwest this summer as well as that have been observed during recent the intense cold that Europe endured late last decades.” WEB LINK http://www.northjersey.com/news/A_very_wh.html CCL FILENAME 2013 01 01 NorthJerseyRecord O’Neill EDITORIAL A ‘very wacky’ year for weather hurts December 26, 2012 Free-­‐market answer to the stark reality of climate change By Bob Deen Let’s face it: most environmentalists are liberals. Not all by any means, but enough that when solutions to climate change are discussed, all you hear are solutions based on a liberal philosophy: taxes, regulations, government spending. To fiscal conservatives, these solutions are anathema. They don’t fit our free-­‐market philosophy, so we reject them. Unfortunately, rather than propose solutions based on conservative principles, far too many of us take the easy way out and simply deny there’s a problem. To those of us fiscal conservatives who understand that the world’s climate scientists actually know more about their lifetime field of study than we do, this leaves us with a dilemma – do we support these liberal solutions, or do we sit by and watch the world cook? Fortunately, there’s a third option: a solution based on conservative principles and the free market. That option is a carbon fee and rebate system. To understand why this is fiscally conservative, let’s take a look at how pollution (of any kind) is handled in the free market. It isn’t. In the absence of government regulation, there is no penalty or cost of any kind for someone to pollute. In economics jargon, pollution is called an “externality” – something outside the market. It is not factored in to economics equations. But when you emit a pollutant, you are imposing costs on society. If you foul a river, you hurt the fisherman’s livelihood. If you poison the air, we all pay for healthcare costs. Because it is often hard to trace damage to a specific polluter, the government usually ends up footing the bill. The polluter has ceded responsibility for their actions and handed it to the government. That’s not conservative; that’s socialism. The environment can handle a certain amount of pollution. When you pollute, you are taking some of that capacity and using it as your own – in essence, you are claiming “space” for your pollution. In the current system, this is accomplished by theft – you take the space you want for your pollution without asking or paying for it. This is counter to the very idea of a free market – the exchange of goods and services by willing participants. But what if we turned this into a market transaction? Rather than stealing the space for your pollution, you buy it. Pay those who are impacted for the right to emit your pollutant. They accept the transaction because they value whatever you’re doing that causes the pollution, and they are compensated for the damages they suffer. Suddenly there is a price on pollution – one that encourages companies to pollute less, since it is now a business expense. Overall pollution will decline significantly, in the most efficient way possible as mediated by the free market. How does this apply to climate change? In the case of emitting climate-­‐changing greenhouse gases, the damage caused is very real – but also very diffuse. It affects everyone, a little bit. It is not practical to pay everyone directly who is affected. This is where the idea of a carbon tax comes from – the government collects a fee for the burning of fossil fuels. But that of course is a tax, which increases the size of government – not exactly a conservative approach. But now imagine we take that idea and instead of using it to fund the government, we rebate it back to the populace on a per-­‐capita basis. Send everyone a check at the end of the year. This completes the market transaction – those burning fossil fuels are buying space in the atmosphere to store their carbon from the rest of us, who are duly compensated for it. It is no longer a tax, because the government is not keeping the money -­‐ it is merely a conduit for handling the payments efficiently. Putting a price on carbon like this will unleash the free market to come up with alternatives – rather than having the government choose winners and losers. The rebate removes the regressiveness inherent in a carbon tax – low income people tend to use less energy, but it’s a higher percentage of their expenses so it hurts them more. Most of them actually come out ahead with the rebate, as does anyone who uses less energy than average. Import/export adjustments would be applied to ensure domestic industries are not disadvantaged. The best part is that this idea should receive bipartisan support. I believe most environmentalists don’t care how the climate change issue is addressed – as long as it is done effectively. This is one of the few solutions – liberal or conservative – that actually has a chance of appealing to both sides of our hyper-­‐partisan country. For more information on fee and rebate, visit citizensclimatelobby.org or energyandenterprise.com. Bob Deen is a volunteer with the Pasadena Foothills chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby
November 4, 2012
Taking steps against climate change By Robert Haw It’s like a Gary Larson cartoon. The evidence is overwhelming, it’s all around us. Fires,
floods, and droughts – they keep coming and we just laugh them off. Cartoon-like for sure,
although the joke might be on us.
The symptoms of climate change are clear, unambiguous and abundantly real. Climate
scientists’ predictions are coming true, although they’re happening faster than anticipated.
Ocean levels are rising and ice is melting. Look at the Arctic: September’s sea ice extent
was less than half the 1970’s September coverage. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg
because, as predicted, extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. The
windstorm here in December brought unprecedented damage. The previous December
(2010) L.A. County was inundated with a year’s worth of rain in less than a week. We saw
record-setting heat and drought in the Midwest this summer, which was preceded by an
unusually warm winter. Although there’s nothing unusual about droughts and storms, a
continual setting of new records at the upper end, in rapid succession, is unusual. Since
major droughts have major consequences, if we don’t heed scientists’ warnings and decarbonize society, the effects of climate disruption will become commonplace in
supermarket aisles. It’s happening right now, with corn and soy-based food prices up 60%.
As 350.org founder Bill McKibben pointed out in an article in the August 2nd Rolling
Stone, the atmosphere has only a small margin for absorbing new CO2 before reaching 3.6º
F (2º C) of warming. Coal is an especially dirty fuel because it releases roughly 150%
more CO2 than natural gas or oil per unit of energy, as well as releasing mercury and other
toxins. Assuming business-as-usual proportions, Earth’s “coal budget” is 85 billion tons
worldwide before the bell on this count-down clock of warming tolls “midnight” (and we
leave the climatic “safe zone”). Around the world there’s a fleet of approximately 2000
power plants burning coal. One of those is the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP) in Utah – a
large plant that burns 5 million tons of coal per year and supplies Pasadena with much of its
power. Multiply 2000 plants by say (just) 2.5 million tons of coal per plant and it equals 5
billion tons of coal per year. How long does that leave us before we exit the “safe zone”?
By this analysis: 85/5 = 17 years. Using a different method (including all fossil fuels),
McKibben computed 16 years. Heck, the war in Afghanistan has lasted almost that long.
Pasadena Water and Power, our publicly-owned electric utility, receives 60% of its
electricity from IPP. According to PWP’s plans, IPP power will decrease to 40% in 2016.
But that level of coal-dependency will then persist for at least another decade. Science is
telling us we need to become coal-free within this decade, and to abandon fossil fuels
entirely within 25 years. So what are our options? A rapid transition away from fossil
fuels could increase electricity rates. Alternatively, what might it cost to stay with coal?
Coal costs are expected to rise anyway, but additional unexpected costs might include
losing your roof in a severe windstorm, losing your backyard landscaping due to largerthan-expected storm runoff, or losing city streets because of inadequate storm sewers. It
might mean soaring rent and / or association fees as insurance premiums and the cost of
providing services rise. It might mean spiraling food and water prices as extreme weather
events reduce agricultural output. It might mean less seafood as oceans acidify. It might
mean job loss, as former sources of wealth in nature shrink. It might mean loss of your
retirement annuity, as large financial institutions collapse because their investments have
collapsed. These suggestions are not imaginary; they’ve already occurred elsewhere,
maybe just not to you.
Munich Re is a re-insurance company, one of the largest in the world. They insure the
insurance companies. Here’s what they’re saying, as reported in the October 10th edition
of USA Today: “The number of natural disasters per year has been rising dramatically on
all continents since 1980, but the trend is steepest for North America where countries have
been battered by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, searing heat, and drought”.
Fossil fuels are like the Pied Piper. We enjoy cheap energy now but at what cost to our
children? A stable climate has brought us abundance and opportunity. But by disrupting
those patterns, those cycles of life, we stand to lose everything we’ve worked for because
of irreversible climate change.
We can all make positive contributions to solving the climate crisis and here’s something
you can do. Sign up for PWP’s Green Energy option. Customers choosing this option
receive 100% wind-generated electricity. Go to:
http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/waterandpower/greenpower/default.asp
Changing policy is also important, so tell your elected representatives that climate change
matters to you. One way to do this is through the Citizens Climate Lobby. CCL is a nonpartisan organization advocating for a federal fee on carbon-based fuels (increasing over
time) that will speed the shift to clean energy. Returning 100% of the revenue from that
fee to citizens will help make the shift to a carbon-free economy less stressful. And putting
such a policy in place will make it in every utility’s self-interest to transition away from
coal and fossil fuels, and into clean energy.
Robert Haw is a volunteer with the Pasadena Foothills chapter of the Citizens Climate
Lobby
http://lang3-plus-pasadenastarnews-pasadenastarnews/1-sg_common_a14_110412_w-or9.pdf
UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE
FEATURE ARTICLE, WINTER, 2012
How to meet the climate crisis
A carbon fee might be the key to breaking our fossil-fuel addiction.
By Ellie Whitney
Unitarian Universalists are a special breed. We don’t claim to own “the truth,” but we commit to
searching for truth. We vow “to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science.” We try to
live upright lives, not to seek rewards in the next world, but to improve conditions in this one.
Today, conditions for life are deteriorating because of the changing climate. We’ve come to see
that the ways we make and use energy are the chief cause of climate disruption. Our nation and
China bear the greatest responsibility for this trend because we burn the most fossil fuels (coal, oil,
and natural gas). Fossil fuels, when burned, emit heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases. These gases are
now accumulating in the atmosphere and raising the planet’s temperature. In response, studyaction groups at the 2006 UU General Assembly crafted a Statement of Conscience, urging
congregations to reduce fossil-fuel use and recommending many energy-saving measures. The
2012 General Assembly considered a proposed Congregational Study/Action Issue focusing on
climate action and adaptation plans.
Greenhouse gases come from many sources, but carbon dioxide (CO2) is the focus of preventive
efforts because measures to control it will help to control most others as well. Atmospheric
CO2 ranged around 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era; today it is higher than
390 ppm and rising steadily. The highest concentration compatible with continued human health
and ecosystem stability is 350; hence we are now seeing increasing harm to both.
Heat waves, floods, droughts, fires, violent storms, record rainfalls and snowfalls, and other
unprecedented events are becoming increasingly common due to accumulating atmospheric heat.
People all over the globe are abandoning ruined homes and lands rendered uninhabitable by
weather disasters.
The earth’s temperature has varied widely, and from many causes, since the planet’s birth some
four and a half billion years ago, but for the 11,700 years since the last ice age, the Holocene epoch,
the climate has been mild. The sun’s heat has warmed the earth, and atmospheric greenhouse
gases, notably CO2, have kept enough warmth from escaping back to space to support life, a
beneficial balance. The current warming began when human uses of coal and, later, oil began
adding significant “extra” quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Reports of the warming began to appear in the 1930s, and by 1960, thanks to precise study of
atmospheric CO2by geochemist and oceanographer Charles David Keeling, it was becoming clear
that the oceans were not taking up these “extra” emissions. After that, scientific study of all
influences on the climate intensified, and by 1988, thousands of scientists from around the world
convened as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to compile and evaluate the
available findings. The first IPCC report appeared in 1990.
Early uncertainty in the first IPCC report has now given way to certainty that the climate is
warming rapidly and dangerously, the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible, the trend poses
threats to human societies and natural ecosystems, and corrective action is urgently needed.
Internationally, some thirty-two academies of science concur with these findings and are urging the
nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
A deadline is now approaching. An International Energy Agency report issued late in 2011 states
that “unless urgent action is taken, calamitous climate change is certain . . . . There is still time to act,
but the window of opportunity is closing.” Lags in the replacement of fossil-fuel use by clean energy
use have put the world on pace for 6 degrees Celsius of global warming by the end of this century.
Six degrees Celsius is 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a large temperature rise occurred once 250
million years ago and extinguished 90 percent of the life on earth. The current rise in temperature
is of the same magnitude but is occurring faster. Clearly, to halt and reverse this trend, we must
reduce or eliminate all uses of fossil fuels.
Not only among scientists, but also among faith communities, concern about the changing
climate is intense. My daughter Lynn and I surveyed twenty faith groups and four interfaith
organizations during 2011 while compiling the booklet Faith Based Statements on Climate Change,
and we found that all express similar views and calls to action.
For example, the Vatican urges that we must “Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions
without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and
ensure the long-term stability of the climate system.” It concludes that the cost “pales in
comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.”
Most groups express profound concern for the poor, the aged, future generations, and other
species. “The Time to Act Is Now: A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change” (2008)* calls on us to
“preserve humanity from imminent disaster and to assist the survival of the many diverse and
beautiful forms of life on Earth,” asking us to act on behalf of “future generations, and the other
species that share the biosphere with us” who “have no voice to ask for our compassion.”
Summing up the moral dimensions of the climate crisis, UU minister the Rev. Terry Ellen calls it
“the mother of all social justice issues.”
Individuals and local governments have been making commendable efforts, from light-bulb
exchanges to green building programs, but not broadly or quickly enough. They are no substitute
for national and international action. What is needed is U.S. government legislation that will rapidly
reduce the nation’s fossil-fuel use and prompt other nations to do the same. So far, Congress has
approved no national policy, nor has it backed any strong international agreements to curb
CO2 emissions.
There is, however, a tactic Congress could adopt that would accomplish the needed reductions.
The fastest, most effective way to change consumption patterns is to change the prices of things.
If we want less CO2, we need to tax carbon, an idea gaining traction among economists, politicians,
and the general public. A method known as “carbon fee-and-rebate” is embodied in the “Save Our
Climate Act,” H.R. 3242, introduced in 2011 by Rep. Pete Stark (D-California). The concept has
widespread support among economists and politicians, both conservative and liberal, including
former Reagan economic advisor Art Laffer.
A carbon fee-and-rebate system has three working parts: gradually rising fees imposed on
carbon at the source, rebates of the entire proceeds to legal residents, and border tariffs to equalize
the impacts on countries that do and do not employ such fees.
Fees (or taxes) are imposed on the carbon contents of all fuels at their points of entry into the
U.S. economy. Small the first year (say, $10 per ton of carbon), they rise gradually until
CO2 emissions have stabilized at a defined, acceptable level. This makes fuel prices rise, but
incrementally: the first year, for example, the price of gasoline rises by ten cents a gallon.
Once collected from the companies that are selling fossil fuels into the economy, all of the fees
are given equally to consumers as rebate checks or tax cuts. These exceed the fuel-price increases
that most consumers face.
Border adjustments complete the system. Any country that has no carbon-fee system of its own
must pay a carbon fee to the United States before selling its goods within our borders. This makes
trade fair and also makes it likely that our trading partners will enact their own carbon taxes in
order to keep the revenue within their own economies. This will lower global-warming emissions
around the world, hopefully in time to prevent the most calamitous effects of climate change.
Many benefits will follow from a carbon fee-and-rebate system. It will attract major investments
into clean energy technologies, produce a bonanza in new jobs, reduce security threats from oil-rich
countries, and smooth out the roller-coaster price fluctuations that today make planning difficult
for both fuel companies and businesses. It is revenue-neutral, transparent, fair, and even-handed. It
would not lend itself to gaming by speculators as cap-and-trade carbon-limiting schemes proposed
earlier have done. Air and water quality will improve as clean energy replaces fossil energy. And it
represents a realistic hope for keeping the planet habitable.
The best way to persuade Congress to enact carbon fee-and-rebate legislation is for citizens, in
large numbers, to demand its passage. One powerful advocate of this legislation is the Citizens
Climate Lobby, a fast-growing nonprofit with nearly seventy chapters across the United States and
Canada. CCL volunteers have visited every office on Capitol Hill, introducing and explaining this
proposed legislation.
Another powerful advocate can be UU congregations. Alliances between UU congregations and
CCL chapters are a natural reflection of their common concerns. Some CCL chapters have started in
UU congregations and hold monthly meetings there.
We UUs have a sacred obligation to preserve a livable world for future generations. The task will
not be burdensome if we tax carbon and give the revenue back to the people. We need to do this
wonderful thing and we need to do it now
WEB LINK http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/280781.shtml
CCL FILENAME 2012 Winter issue UUWorld Whitney E FEATURE How to meet the climate crisis
RELATED RESOURCES
The Time to Act Is Now: A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change. By Zen teacher Dr. David Tetsuun Loy and
senior Theravadin teacher Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi with scientific input from Dr John Stanley, 2008. (ecobuddhism.org)
Threat of Global Warming/Climate Change. Statement of Conscience adopted by the Unitarian Universalist
Association, 2006. (UUA.org)
Citizens Climate Lobby.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 31, 2012 Carbon tax is the right idea Re Editorial: Save the planet. Save Social Security. Save Medicaid. Tax carbon. (December 27) “If Congress and the president were more rational than political — admittedly, a very big if — they could kill a covey of birds with one stone. . . .”
Your editorial about replacing the payroll tax with a carbon tax ("Carbon cure-­‐all," Dec. 27) was right on target. Even after the bizarre and costly weather events of the last three years, climate change is still not getting the attention it deserves. In Chicago, we have already broken the record for the latest measurable snowfall, the longest time between last and first snowfalls, and the latest above-­‐freezing daytime highs ever. Add to that the unprecedented low water level and nearly nonexistent winter ice cover on Lake Michigan, and the trend is painfully clear. But Chicago is just one town among many. The whole planet is experiencing the long-­‐
predicted effects of climate change. As an energy researcher for more than three decades, I know that fossil fuel emissions trap heat, higher temperatures over land create drought, and warmer ocean waters pour energy into monster storm systems like Sandy. This is not ideology, it's chemistry. In fact, even Exxon-­‐Mobil has now voiced support for a revenue-­‐neutral carbon tax. I guess even oil executives are starting to worry about their children's future. What's stopping our politicians? Rick Knight Brookfield, Ill. WEB LINK http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor/carbon-­‐tax-­‐is-­‐the-­‐
right-­‐idea/article_e73ba14c-­‐e8bf-­‐57d6-­‐a063-­‐407bc333b1b9.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 31 StLPostDispatch Knight LTE Carbon tax is the right idea WINNIPEG, MANITOBA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 29, 2012 Changing the weather I was dumbstruck by the absence of two words in Ryan Bowman's Dec. 22 article Strange, with a chance of extreme. Even though 2012 saw the release of a report that concluded there is 20 times more chance of finding someone who believes aliens walk among us than finding a published climate scientist who disagrees humans are materially contributing to climate change, no mention of "climate change" appears in this article. When taken in addition to recent findings by NASA climatologist James Hansen that show a statistical correlation between increasing extreme weather events and our warming planet, the absence of "climate change" in this context appears almost as whacky and weird as the weather on which it reports. IAN EDWARDS Winnipeg WEB LINK http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/have-­‐your-­‐say-­‐
185134481.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 29 WinnipegFreePress Edwards LTE Changing the weather LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 29, 2012 Readers get real about climate change Any self-­‐respecting newspaper would not seriously consider printing an opinion piece by someone who claimed smoking isn’t harmful to human health. The evidence on human-­‐caused climate change is clear, too. Tom Harris is funded by the oil industry and denies what 97 per cent of climate scientists confirm: greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet. The irony is that Harris also worked with the APCO, an independent communications consultancy which tried to advance the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health. Cheryl McNamara Toronto WEB LINK http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/letters/Climate+change+future+debated/7754526/story.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 29 VancouverSun McNamara LTE Readers get real about climate change EDITORIAL, DECEMBER 27, 2012 Copyright Jim Powell, desmogblog.com
Save the planet. Save Social Security. Save Medicaid. Tax carbon. By the Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post-­Dispatch If Congress and the president were more rational than political — admittedly, a very big if — they could kill a covey of birds with one stone. They could replace the payroll tax with a carbon tax. Suddenly Social Security and Medicare funding would be secure, which means the rest of the fiscal crisis would be fixed. Plus, you might save the planet in the process. Instead of paying combined Social Security and Medicare taxes of 7.65 percent through payroll deduction (assuming the Social Security tax portion of it goes back to 6.2 percent next year), workers would keep that money. They’d need at least part of it to pay for the carbon taxes on gasoline, natural gas and electricity produced by coal or gas plants. For example, if oil companies were taxed $20 a ton for the carbon dioxide their products created, they’d pass along the cost to consumers. The price of gasoline would go up about 20 cents a gallon. Consumers, eager to save money, would look for ways to reduce their carbon use. Entrepreneurs, eager for ways to cash in, would look for ways to help them. Instead of a regressive flat tax on payroll, the carbon tax would be more efficient consumption tax. Slowly, perhaps imperceptibly at first, carbon emissions into the atmosphere would be reduced. The temperature of the atmosphere would not go up so fast, perhaps stabilizing enough to avoid worldwide catastrophe. The Earth might be habitable for our grandchildren. Liberal economists like the carbon tax. Conservative economists like the carbon tax. Environmentalists like the carbon tax. Even ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell have had a few nice words about the carbon tax, though some people doubt their sincerity. So why not do a carbon tax instead of fooling around with spending cuts, tax expenditures, payroll taxes, plan Bs, sequestration and all the rest of the fiscal cliff discussion? Because the politics of it will be really, really hard. Because many politicians are still in hock to the fossil fuel industry. And because many people, Superstorm Sandy and Superdrought 2012 notwithstanding, would still rather pretend that global warming is not real. The accompanying pie chart should be instructive. It was produced by James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He did a broad search in scientific journals for every peer-­‐reviewed study of climate change and/or global warming since 1991. He found 13,950 of them, the combined work of 33,690 scientists from around the world. Precisely 24 of the 13,950 studies rejected global warming. That piece represents 17 hundredths of 1 percent of the pie. End of debate. Congress hasn’t passed cap-­‐and-­‐trade legislation, a far less efficient solution. The carbon tax might have a better shot. As Elizabeth Kolbert noted in the Dec. 10 edition of The New Yorker, the carbon tax is an almost perfect solution to what economists call a “Pigovian” problem created by carbon emissions. In 1920, the British economist Arthur Pigou noted that certain private investments impose costs on other people. You fill up your gas tank, you get the benefit of transportation. The gas station, its distributors and the oil company all make money. But the cost of the carbon emissions are borne by society in the form of climate change. A bridge or highway toll is a classic Pigovian tax. Federal and state gasoline taxes that go to build and maintain roads and bridges are Pigovian. The Metropolitan Sewer District levies Pigovian taxes disguised as fees. The St. Louis city earnings tax is Pigovian. A carbon tax would require those who use fossil fuels — which is everyone except a few people living way off the grid — to pay for the social costs of global warming up front. Conservative doctrine is that taxing consumption is always preferable to taxing income. The most notable conservative advocate for the carbon tax is economist Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush and economic adviser to Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. He is joined by former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and supply-­‐
side guru Arthur Laffer, among others. Most believe a carbon tax should be revenue-­‐neutral, that is whatever new revenue it produces should be offset by tax cuts elsewhere. Liberals, on the other hand, see not only environmental benefits in a carbon tax, but a source of new revenue needed to reduce benefits and balance the budget without cutting other spending programs. This dispute — revenue-­‐neutral vs. new revenue — will dominate carbon tax discussions should Congress ever get around to debating it. There will also be debate over how high the tax should be. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that a carbon tax of $80 per metric ton of emissions could keep disaster from happening by the end of the century. Other experts have said that’s too low. An $80-­‐a-­‐ton tax would cause gasoline prices to go up 70 to 80 cents a gallon. In a rational world, that would be the goal, with the carbon tax offset by payroll tax cuts and perhaps tax rebates to low-­‐income Americans. It would also have to be accompanied by carbon tariffs imposed on goods imported from countries that are not addressing the problem. The debate won’t start at $80 a ton; indeed, given the power of the fossil fuel lobby, it won’t begin until several more years of killer storms, flood and drought. In a rational world, the debate would be well under way. Kevin Horrigan is deputy editorial page editor of the Post-­Dispatch. Follow him on Twitter at @oldsport. WEB LINK http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-­‐platform/editorial-­‐save-­‐the-­‐planet-­‐
save-­‐social-­‐security-­‐save-­‐medicaid-­‐tax/article_296f43f0-­‐aaef-­‐5d24-­‐84b5-­‐cb5c2bedd224.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 27 StLPostDispatch Ed Board EDITORIAL Save the planet Save social security Save Medicaid Tax carbon The Post-­‐Dispatch editorial board decided to publish this opinion after a conversation with the Citizen Climate Lobby’s media director and other CCL volunteers. EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD, OREGON OPED, DECEMBER 27, 2012 Global warming and the labor movement By ESSN Global Warming Committee (Milton Takai) The Eugene-­‐Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice (ESSN/JwJ) has called upon national Jobs with Justice to initiate a discussion among all its chapters on the topic of how the labor movement should address global warming. ESSN/JwJ might do work on a number of social justice issues, but global warming is not merely one of a long list of problems that the world faces; it could cause millions of people to suffer the death penalty, including many who are not yet born, and thus have no say in present-­‐day decisions. The multiple disasters that unchecked global warming will visit upon our planet would negate whatever successes that the labor movement and its allies might achieve. Time is short. The government of China has made concessions in announcing a cap on energy consumption, and agreeing to be bound by a future international global warming agreement. China is waiting to see how the U.S. will respond, but politicians will need to feel pressure before they do what is necessary; the labor movement is still the strongest of U.S. social movements, so should be part of the political deliberations. The labor movement could put its organizational skills to good use. The issue of jobs has long been a bone of contention between the environmental and labor movements. Solutions to the global warming problem will involve many people losing their jobs, say in the automobile and coal industries. The Pacific Northwest has to face the fact that logging causes half of greenhouse gas emissions. Finding new livelihoods for displaced workers could be the part of the problem that the labor movement should particularly address. By taxing the rich, governments could create green jobs, say in public transit. The U.S. government could stop wasting taxpayers' money on war-­‐making industries, and instead convert them into renewable energy enterprises. Renewable energy could power national high-­‐speed rail to reduce the need for air travel. Solar power in Eastern Oregon, plus wind power and tidal power on the Oregon coast would provide jobs that would be harder of outsource to other countries. All these industries could feature worker cooperatives in which the workers hire the managers, instead of the other way around. New jobs would help create more jobs as the money circulates. Some people could get jobs [in] sustainable forestry, though the need for less wood consumption, particularly in housing, will mean the loss of jobs. Industrial hemp could provide plywood and other building materials, paper, clothing, and food. Teachers and health care workers would be a part of an environmentally-­‐sound economy, and the labor movement would play a big part in defending such jobs. Workers who lose their jobs due to global who do not own cars are living in a degraded warming legislation might not be able to find condition. ESSN/JwJ's social justice work will a green job. People over forty years old might help in easing the transition. Universal health face particular difficulties. Coal and timber insurance would mean that workers would industry workers live in rural areas, where not need to worry about medical expenses new jobs could be scarce. One possibility they might face after losing their jobs. would be something like the late labor leader On April 30th, ESSN/JwJ sponsored a Tony Mazzocchi's idea of paying people not to presentation by Mark Reynolds of the Citizens work. Workers who lose their jobs because of Climate Lobby (CCL), which has been working efforts to fight global warming could get the to create the political will to pass a carbon tax equivalent of social security disability checks. bill that Rep. Pete Stark has introduced in the Since most people would probably prefer to U.S. Congress. Under the proposed legislation, work, the money could be taxed away if they the money from the tax would be returned to end up getting jobs that pay over a certain households, thus protecting a majority of the amount. For workers in rural areas, these people from much of the effects of the tax. monthly payments could be a little subsidy The plan is have another bill to support in the for small organic farms that would, among next Congressional session. other things, fix carbon in the soil. ESSN/JwJ has helped to start a Eugene CCL Fighting global warming will cause chapter. For information, e-­‐mail: economic dislocation—the economies of the <[email protected]> or call the ESSN/JwJ office world's richest countries need to shrink. at 541/736-­‐9041.
People will need to stop thinking that those WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2012 12 27 ESSN Takai OPED Global warming and the labor movement EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 27, 2012 Climate Change and Hurricane Sandy By Dave Piccioni Large companies, people afraid to face Now those who are actually making our their fears, and the media (a subsidiary of big planet unlivable get away with a fine, which is corporations) all claim that climate change merely part of the cost of doing business. The isn't real. Yet global warming is upon us, and fiduciary obligation (making money), not is the thing that will destroy civilization. I say Nature and Mind, have become our gods. with sadness that I'm glad Hurricane Sandy There are lots of groups talking about came up and hit the East coast; we Americans climate change. The Citizens Climate Lobby are the main cause of greenhouse gasses and (CCL) is one that is making progress. I found it's time that the information which the media out in the last CCL educational conference call has so misrepresented came to everyone's that with more moisture retained in our attention. atmosphere and the average temperatures My parents both live in New Jersey and rising worldwide, we can expect tropical had a power outage for seven days; other diseases in our very own USA. To end, I will people are suffering even more. I must mention that mosquito carried malaria has explain that I don't want this planet's sentient killed one third of the population that has life to experience more suffering; on the ever lived on Earth. A carbon tax would be contrary I want all groups profiting from one of the many measures that would make it climate crisis to stop. In the past, a more expensive to engage in activities which corporation's charter was frequently revoked hurt us all.
when it stopped serving the public good. WEB LINK CCL FILENAME 2012 12 27 ESSN Piccioni LTE Climate change and Hurricane Sandy LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 26, 2012 Science points to warming of the Earth Max Peters' Dec. 7 letter, "Needed on climate change: Honest broker," caught my attention. Mr. Peters' letter goes on about sunspots and magnetic fields and temperature cycles and seems to come to the conclusion that carbon dioxide has little to do with our changing climate. He ends his letter with "and I fear we are moving from science by evidence to science by public opinion." Mr. Peters, your fears have come true. Ninety-­‐seven percent of climate scientists most actively publishing in their field, the National Academies of Sciences of many nations, and virtually every relevant scientific organization agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The earth is warming due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere being released by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. This is not in debate in the scientific community. I have never seen a field of science so disputed among the general public, the halls of Congress and the media as climate science has been. If we just dismiss the findings of an entire field of science and substitute our own opinions as fact, why bother having science at all? We go to medical professionals because of their training in their field. You wouldn't dismiss 97 percent of doctors if they told you that you needed serious medical attention right away or you may not live. What's really needed on climate change is for people to stop being "armchair climate scientists" and to start working together to solve our climate crisis. Jon Clark Dover WEB LINK http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/796822_Science-­‐points-­‐to-­‐warming-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
Earth.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 26 Intelligencer Clark LTE Science points to warming of the earth HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 26, 2012 Climate change should be a factor
Judge Persons said it is not his role to choose between coal and natural gas as a fuel source for the Kemper County coal power plant. If the Public Service Commission and Mississippi Power haven’t been following the news about climate change and its implications for coal power plants, then shame on them. Climate change warms rivers, lakes and coastal waters making it harder for coal-­‐
power plants to get enough cool water to use as a coolant. Climate change makes the Mississippi River levels drop so low that barges, often carrying coal to power plants, can’t navigate the river. PSC and Mississippi Power argue they decided on a coal-­‐power plant in Kemper County based on the best interests of local residents, but since they ignored climate change, they did not consider the best interests of the people of Mississippi, they only considered one factor, the price of coal. However, obtaining electricity is linked with air quality, water quality and the cost of food (which will increase in 2013 by about 4 percent due to climate change droughts). If PSC and Mississippi Power refuse to factor climate change into their decision-­‐
making process and make the responsible decision to stop using coal to produce electricity, then Congress must enact a carbon tax to help dissuade them. A carbon tax would make coal more expensive than other fuels because coal is dirtier. Readers should call the White House at (202) 456-­‐1111 daily asking the president to hold a summit immediately on climate change and its solutions. Judy Weiss, member of Citizens Climate Lobby Brookline, Mass WEB LINK http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20121230/OPINION03/312270010/Climate-­‐
change-­‐should-­‐factor?nclick_check=1 CCL FILENAME 2012 12 26 HattiesburgAmerican Weiss LTE Climate change should be a factor TORONTO, ONTARIO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 26, 2012 Acid rain frolic James Adams encourages us to write to Stephen Harper about recasting Christmas tunes to reflect our changing climate (Let It Rain! Let It Rain! Let It Rain! – Life & Arts, Dec. 24). Brilliant idea! I’d like our musical PM to write lyrics to Joy to Denial and Oh, the Climate outside is Frightful but the Oil is so Delightful. Cheryl McNamara Toronto WEB LINK http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/letters/dec-­‐26-­‐heavenly-­‐peace-­‐and-­‐other-­‐
letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐editor/article6708105/ CCL FILENAME 2012 12 26 GlobeandMail McNamara LTE Acid rain frolic LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 12, 2012 Carbon tax leaders The Cato Institute told us for decades that international carbon pricing mechanisms global warming is not happening and now could harmonize with a domestic fee on tells us a carbon tax won’t solve the problem carbon while complying with WTO law. Likely it said doesn’t exist [“Carbon tax won’t help complicated but a border-­‐tax adjustment will global warming,” Opinion, Dec. 12]. pass WTO scrutiny. The Institute is right about the Cato Cato also imagines an American carbon tax carbon tax. It will not work. Theirs does that stands alone while the rest of the nothing to protect American businesses at the developing world goes about business as border. All other carbon-­‐tax proponents usual, burning fossil fuel willy nilly. Wrong know that for a carbon tax to work again. domestically and internationally, an effective American leadership is what has been border adjustment will be necessary. lacking thus far. A simple, straight forward In international legal circles Joost revenue-­‐neutral American carbon tax would Pauwelyn is considered the world’s top right this and would be the easiest method for World Trade Organization expert. Pauwelyn first, second and third world countries to has given his assurance to Congress members emulate. that a border-­‐tax adjustment is viable. Craig Preston His graduate students researched how Costa Mesa WEB LINK http://letters.ocregister.com/2012/12/22/afghanistans-­‐shameful-­‐military-­‐unpreparedness/ CCL FILENAME 2012 12 22 OrangeCountyRegister Preston LTE Carbon tax leaders LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 15, 2012 Avoiding the climate cliff: Lessons from films of the season NORMAN — In “The Dust Bowl,” Ken Burns documented the greatest man-­‐made ecological disaster in U.S. history. The stories of those who lived through it as children lend particular poignancy to the folly of plowing under the prairie sod for unsustainable fields of wheat. Flash forward to 2012, as we witness first hand, similar devastation, but this time on a global scale. In “Chasing Ice,” James Balog captured the power of our warming planet via time lapse photography of glacial melting; entire landscapes have disappeared in as little as three years. Nova’s “Inside the Megastorm” uses the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy to illustrate how the effects of rising sea levels and temperatures intensify natural disasters. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for environmental disasters that are increasingly exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels? Particularly while the oil and gas industries reap huge profits and billions in government subsidies? The estimated costs of Sandy alone are in the tens of billions, a price tag that doesn’t include the human health costs and loss of life. The World Bank’s alert, “Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided,” reports that the most pessimistic climate change models have been the most accurate in predicting recent temperature rise. We are fast approaching the tipping point, when we will not be able to control the rate of warming. Then, tropical forests, peat bogs, permafrost and the oceans will stop absorbing carbon and start to release it. To avoid this climate cliff, we must reduce global CO2 emissions by 6 percent annually (Hansen et al. 2012). We need to act now. The science is clear. The math is simple. We know what we need to do. Economists across the political spectrum agree that the price of carbon fuels fails to reflect the real cost to taxpayers of burning these resources. Putting a price on CO2 emissions is the most efficient way to reduce warming and spur production of sustainable forms of energy. Even some energy companies (BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil) agree. We need a national policy that will 1) put a steadily-­‐rising, predictable fee on carbon emissions. 2) return all revenues from the fee to households, thereby offsetting the higher energy costs that will be passed on to consumers. 3) levy border tariffs to protect American business from unfair foreign competition To accomplish this goal, we need real leadership. Perhaps the courage shown by Rep. Cole and Sen. Coburn on taxes will motivate a hard look at this issue. Today, addressing the challenges of a warming planet is as divisive an issue as slavery was in Lincoln’s time. And like slavery in 19th century, today’s climate issue, if not tackled directly, threatens to dwarf our current fiscal and social problems. We need a historic figure to lead our country to a sustainable world for our children and future generations. President Obama must be that leader now. The earth is running out of time. Ola Fincke Norman Ola Fincke is a member of Citizens’ Climate Lobby. WEB LINK http://normantranscript.com/opinion/x1839367472/Avoiding-­‐the-­‐climate-­‐cliff-­‐lessons-­‐from-­‐
films-­‐of-­‐the-­‐season CCL FILENAME 2012 12 15 NormanTranscript Fincke LTE Avoiding the climate cliff – lessons from films of the season LINCOLN, NEBRASKA LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 9, 2012 Support fee and dividend plan I want to thank the Journal Star for the editorial Dec. 3, “Drought requires policy changes.” This is an honest assessment of the drought's effects on Nebraska and the city of Lincoln. It's not pretty. The most important paragraph is the last one: “The often-­‐unspoken question is whether the current drought is part of a long-­‐
term change to a more arid climate in Nebraska as a result of gradually warming global temperatures. If that's the case, the measures now being considered will be only a small start toward adaptation.” In the same issue of the Journal Star, Francis Moul's Local View, “Carbon tax best way to reduce warming” presents a very thorough explanation of the dynamics of human-­‐caused global warming. He suggests a carbon tax as a solution. I would like to suggest that the most reasonable carbon tax plan is one that returns ALL of the tax equally to all citizens to help them pay the higher prices. This is called a fee and dividend plan. Now is the time to write to our elected officials and demand action on this plan. Jean Lewis Lincoln WEB LINK http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-­‐support-­‐fee-­‐and-­‐dividend-­‐
plan/article_fbaae975-­‐86cc-­‐523d-­‐9518-­‐eac7fd6b58ee.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 09 LincolnJournalStar Lewis LTE Support fee and dividend plan LINCOLN, NEBRASKA OPED, DECEMBER 2, 2012 Carbon tax best way to reduce warming By Francis Moul In and out, in and out. Our lungs inhale and exhale air every minute, every day, every year of our lives. Good air in, bad air out. Air is life. Until it is not. The fragile atmosphere that surrounds Earth in complex layers leading into the vacuum of space is turning into a threat to the very existence of life on our planet as humans pump more and more greenhouse gases (GHG) upward. As James E. Hansen noted in a column published in the Journal Star, past predictions of climate change leading to devastating global warming from GHG have been too limited — it currently is worse than he ever expected. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Global warming comes when emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ozone and other GHG enter our atmosphere and create a thickening blanket greenhouse effect that traps sunshine and heats the Earth. Hansen and others warn that when CO2 reaches 350-­‐
400 parts per million (ppm), dangerous heat levels result. Currently, we have almost 400 ppm, and we suffer every day the severe drought that results. Methane is 20 times more potent than CO2. There is no escaping this problem. One report notes that half of our CO2 increases will leave the atmosphere within 30 years, another 30 percent within a few centuries, and the remaining 20 percent will last for many millenniums. But we keep pouring billions of tons of CO2 upward every year, from power stations, deforestation, vehicle emissions and more, to increase the load. The effects of all this widen with amplifying feedbacks. Ice melts now are releasing methane from the surface of the Arctic Sea, an event that scientists didn’t know could happen. Pine beetle infestations, heightened by global warming, are killing millions of pine trees throughout North America, releasing long-­‐stored CO2 and eliminating a place to capture the gas. The results and threats of GHG and warming are staggering. High temperatures, permanent Dust Bowl conditions, sea level rises, 50 percent or more species extinction, much more extreme weather, food insecurity across the globe, major health risks and more fearsome unknown ailments we can’t predict now are here or coming. William R. Freudenburg of the University of California Santa Barbara notes in one article that new scientific findings since 2007 “are found to be more than 20 times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is worse than previously expected.” Most of the climatic problem facing humanity comes from extracting, producing and using fossil fuels that emit CO2. Natural gas is seen as a cleaner fuel than gasoline and coal because it emits less CO2 and, in fact, has contributed to a lowering U.S. emission rate schoolchildren understand that, and they and most recently. their children will suffer the most. However, new methods of removing The only way out is to reduce GHG natural gas and shale oil from challenging emissions. The best way to do that is to make deposits through fracturing shale formations fossil fuels too expensive to use. The price of (called fracking), and then refining them, renewable energy from wind and solar power create dangerous levels of air pollution, toxic has fallen sharply in recent years and soon waste water and ground and water pollution. will be equal or cheaper than some fossil Recent research indicates that this new oil fuels, especially as gasoline prices escalate. and gas production also causes an increase in And the best way to make fossil fuels more ground-­‐level ozone releases. Ozone and the expensive is to tax them. One proposal is to resulting smog once were found mostly initiate a carbon tax on gas, oil and coal at around major cities; now, rural areas where their source or at U.S. ports. Then, use those fracking occurs also are suffering. Ozone funds to finance clean energy research and causes health problems including premature give money back to citizens to offset higher mortality, heart failure, increased energy costs. emergencies among children and asthmatic At this time, such a plan is politically sufferers and possible long-­‐term lung impossible. But another summer like the one damage. we suffered through this year may abruptly This is indeed an extremely dire situation. change that attitude. Denying that it exists or is not caused by Francis Moul of Lincoln is an humans is not viable any longer. Even environmental historian. WEB LINK http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-­‐view-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐best-­‐way-­‐
to-­‐reduce-­‐warming/article_18176091-­‐3898-­‐556f-­‐acbc-­‐32902821a776.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 02 LincolnJournalStar Moul OPED Carbon tax best way to reduce warming OPED, DECEMBER 1, 2012 Mother Nature will not suffer fools gladly By Jan Freed Given the importance of climate change, many of us involved in the Citizens Climate Lobby in Pasadena were quite disappointed that the candidates for president in the recent campaign seemed to be going out of their way to ignore the climate crisis and the climate disasters besetting our nation. No mention was made of what we must do to reduce Earth's fever. Americans have been through hell with unprecedented drought, fires and floods, the most costly in history. Chance variation? The pattern of disasters and extreme weather evens beat the odds of your neighbor winning the lottery twice in a row. Even though growth in green energy has produced more jobs than oil, even though increased domestic oil production has never lowered gas prices, even though most citizens want to see carbon emissions decrease, the president and his erstwhile challenger tried to outdo one another on who is more aggressive about "drill, baby, drill." Still? Our finest generals and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta understand climate change is a major national security issue. But it wasn't mentioned. We have solutions, but not political will. At the outset of WWII, the government contracted for hundreds of thousands of warplanes, ships, and tanks, which were built in a matter of months. A fraction of that commitment could help save our climate. One powerful free market solution can save our climate and, at the same time, lower taxes. This is the carbon fee and dividend approach advocated by the Citizens Climate Lobby. Better than cap and trade, because it is more predictable, transparent and less subject to manipulation, it has been recommended by many from both parties. All carbon fees would be returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes -­‐ this is one option; there are others such as a bonus check issued each month by the government. The Save Our Climate Act, HR3242, incorporates this carbon fee but is languishing in the House. You can write your member of Congress and urge support. This carbon fee approach tells the oil, gas and coal industries, "You may not poison our air for free any longer." Green energy gets a level playing field at last. Right here in Pasadena, an innovative project, the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, led by the California Institute of Technology, is an example of state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art research that can provide viable replacement fuels once the true cost of fossil fuels on our environment is recognized in the market place. Our climate has, since pre-­‐industrial times, increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit and we have seen the very extremes that climate scientists predicted decades ago -­‐ only they are far more severe and have arrived sooner than predicted. Mother Nature will not suffer fools who taunt fate, and given the high educational and scientific level here in the San Gabriel Valley, Since all of us share responsibility for the we ought to follow Mother Nature's lead. A health of our nation as well as our kids' business as usual approach to fossil fuels will future, we should have standards as high. be game over for our comfort, our agriculture, Instead of relying on politicians playing our food and wine, forests, fisheries, water their hunches, instead of trying to educate, supplies and a large fraction of the Earth's debate and placate the last denier, citizens species, as we are predicted (and on track!) to should insist that President Obama re-­‐
arrive at 10-­‐plus degrees higher average convene a panel of our very best minds -­‐ temperatures unless we stop the burning of Nobel laureates -­‐ in climate science, fossil fuels. meteorology, chemistry, physics, biology, But politicians fear the wrath and loss of economics and agriculture. campaign funds of the oil-­‐based denial Task the panel: "What is our best science? community, whose mantra is "wait, wait." The What does the evidence say? What are the denial community comes up with endless consequences of a given energy policy on our objections, speculations and delay. Their health and economy, what are the solutions, predictions have always failed. Science has the costs vs. the benefits of mitigation (and debunked them repeatedly. adaptation)? What is the scope of the needed Would anyone be surprised to find response?" And ask them: "How much time denialists making excuses when one day all do we have to act? One year? One decade? Florida is under water? Let's not waste our What are the expected costs (in lives and precious time with these folks. dollars) if we delay?" Politicians gleefully pointing to all that oil Then, Mr. President (and Congress), if you and coal in the ground are like doctors who truly love your children and all America, and ignore a dark spot on your lungs and instead value your mission and legacy, implement cajole you with the strength of your heart. policy on the recommendations of these best And if a serious health crisis arose, would you minds. wait until all bloggers and politicians settled on the diagnosis and treatment? No, you Jan Freed is a former high school would consult with a medical doctor -­‐ but science teacher and a volunteer with only if that physician specializes in your the Pasadena Foothills Chapter of the problem, and if the physician is the best Citizens Climate Lobby. around. WEB LINK http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_22108454/op-­‐ed-­‐mother-­‐nature-­‐will-­‐not-­‐
suffer-­‐fools CCL FILENAME 2012 12 01 PasadenaStarNews Freed OPED Mother Nature will not suffer fools gladly LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 1, 2012 Put carbon tax before such emergency steps as geoengineering One would hope that before confused about the certainty in the embarking on a new discussion of scientific community. “creative interventions” to mitigate The Globe could make up for lost time warming produced by man-­‐made climate and develop public support for strong change, as called for by James Carroll in preventive strategies by providing his Nov. 26 column “The Earth regular and prominent coverage of experiment,” we might take care of the options such as a carbon tax, currently unfinished business of getting coal, oil, under discussion in both progressive and and gas out of our energy mix. conservative circles. Geoengineering may Since 1988, when James Hansen first indeed be the emergency procedure we testified before Congress on the dangers must turn to one day, but let’s focus on of climate change, the science has only stopping the bleeding by putting a gotten clearer and more alarming. Many consumer-­‐friendly fee on carbon. in the media, unfortunately, have put Gary Rucinski fossil fuel industry propaganda on an New England coordinator equal footing with scientific fact, allowing Citizens Climate Lobby, Newton the reading public to be deceived and WEB LINK http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2012/12/01/put-­‐carbon-­‐tax-­‐before-­‐such-­‐
emergency-­‐steps-­‐geoengineering/iWXHVlGPB3R623SlDP6EbI/story.html CCL FILENAME 2012 12 01 BostonGlobe Rucinski LTE Put carbon tax before such emergency steps as geoengineering
EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY, OREGON LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 29, 2012 U.S. needs to join climate accord I’ve found that recent Register-­‐Guard The Citizens Climate Lobby — an coverage of international global warming organization with more than 60 chapters in negotiations has been missing one important North America — exists to build the political fact: At the December 2011 Durban will for national global warming legislation. conference, the world’s poorer countries Without Congress acting, President agreed they would be willing, for the first Obama’s hands are tied regarding the time, to have their greenhouse gas emissions negotiations — unless he chooses to hope limited under a binding accord. that a future U.S. Senate will ratify a new Given that China, India and other poorer treaty and that the U.S. House will pass countries have made such a huge concession legislation to implement the accord here. to richer countries, the United States (the biggest barrier) needs to reciprocate. A new Milton Takei global accord will come into being only Eugene through compromise. WEB LINK http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/sevendays/29096112-­‐47/tax-­‐social-­‐eugene-­‐
security-­‐ordinance.html.csp CCL FILENAME 2012 11 29 RegisterGuard Takei LTE US needs to join climate accord LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 Energy tax credits hit home I appreciate Seth Heald's Op/Ed column, incentive of saving money, many of us "An opportunity for solar power," in which he continue to waste energy. Look at (and hear) detailed how some retailers have installed all the leaf blowers being used by landscape solar panels on their buildings. It ran the companies and the TVs droning on in waiting same day as the PolitiFact coverage of Gov. rooms. As long as energy is relatively cheap, Bob McDonnell's tax credit that pays $50,000 and no one objects, the waste continues. A tax or more annually for the creation of green credit is one way to get the message where jobs. we feel it: in our pockets. Both articles underscore the importance of Monica Lewis policies and tax codes that encourage the Richmond adoption of renewable energy. Without the WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/your-­‐opinion-­‐letters/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐
editor/article_030b17f8-­‐3753-­‐11e2-­‐9137-­‐001a4bcf6878.html CCL FILENAME 2012 11 26 RichmondTD Lewis LTE Energy tax credits hit home LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 25, 2012 We have to wean ourselves off carbon fuels In his Commentary column, “How to our carbon emissions. To do that, we need a Soften Future Storm Blows,” Neal Peirce says new energy infrastructure. our only choice is to build sea walls to protect Peirce noted damage estimates as high as coastal cities from the flooding climate $18 billion for New York City alone. The costs change has brought about. He brings up of climate change are astounding and are excellent points, including the need to protect greater than the costs associated with ending coastal wetlands so they function as a our dependence on fossil fuels. Renewable, protective barrier and the need to limit cleaner sources of energy exist and are being coastal development. We need to take those utilized. Taxing carbon would put money measures. back into America and give renewable energy But building a giant infrastructure of sea a chance to compete with fossil fuels, which walls is not the solution. We can’t fix the have been subsidized for decades. We have effects of the problem; we have to fix the got to wean ourselves off carbon-­‐based problem. As an engineering student, I was energy sources before the next climate taught to develop solutions to problems. catastrophe. Global warming is the problem and the Amanda Wilson solution is not a quick fix. We need to reduce Petersburg WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/your-­‐opinion-­‐letters/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐
editor/article_93107599-­‐0dc6-­‐51e8-­‐824f-­‐7f17c9908cce.html CCL FILENAME 2012 11 25 RichmondTD Wilson LTE We have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels EDITORIAL, NOVEMBER 19, 2012
Fight against climate change
blocked by Luddites at Big Oil
By Linda McQuaig, Columnist
Oil companies currently have proven
reserves of oil, gas and coal worth $27
trillion.
Bruce Chambers/AP
In the interest of fighting climate
change, most of us avoid buying SUVs —
fortress-like vehicles that aren’t
necessary unless one intends to take the
whole family for a spin through
downtown Baghdad.
Most of us also recycle and keep the
thermostat low. However, these gestures
are doing almost nothing to stop the
warming of the planet.
Yet climate change has disappeared
from the political agenda. While the
media diligently scrutinize the security
risk posed by a hot relationship between
a general and his biographer, there’s little
airtime to consider the security risk
posed by something even hotter: the
planet. (A Pentagon-commissioned study
in 2003 concluded that global warming
would lead to brutal storms, flooding,
drought and widespread human strife.
“Once again, warfare would define human
life.” But back to the general . . .)
The news on the climate front is
devastating.
In a report earlier this month,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), one of
the world’s largest accounting firms,
states the world has “passed the critical
threshold” and that current carbon
reductions amount to “a fraction of what
is required against the international
commitment to limit global warming to 2
degrees Celsius.”
In order to keep within that limit by
2050, the accounting firm says the world
will have to dramatically accelerate its
annual pace of carbon reduction — to a
rate never before achieved, and then
continue at that rate “for 39 consecutive
years.” No problem!
That’s if we want to keep warming to
just 2 degrees Celsius — which may be
too high. So far, we’ve warmed the planet
by only 0.8 degrees Celsius — and yet
that little bit of warming packs quite a
punch, as the U.S. east coast learned last
month.
The PwC report notes that, at current
rates, we’re headed for 6 degrees of
warming by the end of the century.
Yet this alarming news was barely
reported. The media apparently didn’t
think it necessary to inform us that the
Earth has basically been tossed onto the
barbecue.
The good news is, with great effort, we
can still turn things around. But blocking
the path to a green future are the world’s
most powerful corporations, whose
phenomenal wealth derives from selling
the very fossil fuels that are driving up
the temperature.
In a brilliant article in Rolling Stone,
Bill McKibben sets out exactly why Big Oil
and the rest of the fossil fuel industry so
fiercely resist action to tackle climate
change.
The companies currently have proven
reserves of oil, gas and coal worth $27
trillion.
If the world were to reduce carbon
emissions enough to keep the
temperature increase below 2 degrees
Celsius, 80 per cent of those reserves
would have to stay in the ground!
McKibben notes that this means the fossil
fuel industry would “be writing off $20
trillion in assets” — not something
corporate moguls do, especially when it
involves their core business.
As author Naomi Klein puts it, “With
the fossil-fuel industry, wrecking the
planet is their business model. It’s what
they do.”
One proposed solution is a “fee-anddividend” scheme, which would heavily
tax fossil fuels and then return the
revenue to the entire population by
monthly cheque, encouraging everyone to
save money by switching to cleaner
energy.
This would help the public transition
to a greener economy. But it wouldn’t
help Big Oil, whose executives would
remain hell-bent on stopping the march of
progress — just as 19th-century textile
workers fiercely resisted being replaced
by spinning machines.
While those workers angrily smashed
the machines, the world moved on to a
prosperous new era of large-scale factory
production, enabling the public to enjoy
brightly coloured cotton calicoes and a
popular social event known as the calico
ball.
The workers, dubbed Luddites, paid a
heavy price for their resistance. They
were executed for destroying the
machines, and have been ridiculed
throughout history.
By contrast, the Luddites running Big
Oil are enjoying the biggest bonanza in
history, even as they block the saving of
the planet — a more grievous offence, by
any reckoning, than denying the world
the benefits of the spinning machine or
even the calico ball.
WEB LINK http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1290137--fight-againstclimate-change-blocked-by-luddites-at-big-oil-mcquaig
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 19 TorontoStar McQuaig EDITORIAL Fight against climate change
blocked by Luddites at Big Oil
OPED, NOVEMBER 19, 2012 A good opportunity for solar power By Seth Heald Online retail giant Amazon has opened two new large distribution centers in the Richmond area. They’ll be operating at full capacity in time for the Christmas shopping rush, according to a Times-­‐Dispatch account last month. The two huge warehouses are part of what The New York Times recently called Amazon’s “multibillion-­‐dollar building frenzy” across the United States. Amazon is growing fast and has big plans for the future. This is good news for Virginia’s economy. The construction and operation of the two state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art facilities has brought and will bring much-­‐needed spending and jobs to the commonwealth. The new buildings should also mean faster and more reliable shipping of Amazon’s products to customers in the region. As a longtime Amazon customer I certainly support that. But there’s a downside to Amazon’s rapid expansion. Like many growing web-­‐based companies, Amazon is a huge electricity consumer, not just with its storage and shipping facilities but also its data centers, including one in Ashburn, Va. Amazon’s growing electricity consumption may be good news in the short term for utilities, but not for Virginians suffering the effects of climate change and air pollution caused in large part by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Forward-­‐thinking businesses recognize that their and their customers’ health and future depend on all of us working together to address climate change and eliminate carbon pollution. Much of that pollution comes from coal and other fossil-­‐fuel-­‐burning electric power plants. Here in Virginia, Dominion Power’s coal and gas-­‐fired plants make the company the largest industrial carbon emitter in the state. The last thing we need now is to be burning more outmoded fossil fuels to support 21st century technology companies like Amazon. A study released in September by the Solar Energy Industries Association reported that many large brick-­‐and-­‐mortar retail businesses have installed solar panels on their roofs. According to the study, the five U.S. companies with the largest installed solar capacity are all well-­‐known retailers, each with lots of stores with plenty of flat roof space ideal for solar photovoltaic panels. Walmart is the leader, with 65,000 kilowatts of installed solar capacity on its buildings. Filling out the top five are Costco, Kohl’s, Ikea and Macy’s. Several other big retailers are in the top 20. These companies know that their up-­‐front investments in solar will bring them decades of electricity at virtually no additional cost. They also know that customers appreciate their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint and limit future energy price increases. Last July the Ikea store adjacent to I-­‐95 in Woodbridge installed the largest solar-­‐
electric generating facility in Virginia. The 504-­‐kilowatt rooftop system has 2,100 solar panels. And in October the expanding Ikea chain announced an ambitious plan to produce enough electricity from wind and solar by 2020 to meet the power needs of all its stores and other buildings worldwide. Missing from the top-­‐20 list of corporations making large solar investments is Amazon. In many respects Amazon is an data center. A huge flat roof is a terrible thing innovator, with a vision for what a web-­‐
to waste. based, successful 21st-­‐century retailer can be. But that vision needs to expand to include Seth Heald of Rixeyville is a lawyer. what retailers like Walmart and Ikea already Apart from being a frequent Amazon know: Solar panels on big buildings are a customer, he has no connection to the sound investment in the future. retail companies mentioned here. So here’s hoping Amazon will follow Ikea’s Contact him at [email protected] lead in Virginia and install solar on its new or 540-­937-­3404 Richmond distribution centers and Ashburn WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-­‐opinion/heald-­‐a-­‐good-­‐opportunity-­‐for-­‐solar-­‐
power/article_e2cc720c-­‐2ebc-­‐5780-­‐b464-­‐634db0687208.html CCL FILENAME 2012 11 19 RichmondTD Heald OPED A good opportunity for solar power LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 18, 2012 A carbon-­based tax is critically needed Neal Peirce should be commended for his Commentary column, “How to soften future storm blows” and his recognition that Hurricane Sandy brings home the stark reality of climate change. However, his focus on a pound of cure, to the exclusion of an ounce of prevention, remains cause for concern. Peirce is correct that coastal flood walls, wetlands barriers and limits on coastal developments will become increasingly important to minimize the devastation of catastrophes such as Hurricane Sandy. But this ignores our urgent need to alter human behavior so climate change is less likely to wreak such future havoc. Presidents and pundits from both political parties have stressed the need to reduce our dependence on oil, natural gas and coal — the carbon-­‐based fuels directly responsible for climate change. Technologies exist now that could dramatically shift our energy use to non-­‐
carbon-­‐based sources — solar, wind, geothermal and tidal. What is needed are market-­‐based incentives to do so. A consumer-­‐ and business-­‐friendly carbon tax — the revenues from which could be dedicated to coastal flood walls and wetlands barriers — is a critically needed first step. Martin Wegbreit Richmond WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/your-­‐opinion-­‐letters/letters-­‐to-­‐the-­‐
editor/article_cd571e36-­‐7e8a-­‐5c03-­‐b87b-­‐02e2ac38eeda.html CCL FILENAME 2012 11 18 RichmondTD Wegbreit LTE A carbon-­‐based tax is critically needed EDITORIAL, NOV. 13, 2012 OUR VIEW | CLIMATE CHANGE Time to do something about the weather Political leaders need to stop avoiding the topic of climate change and come up with proposals to mitigate both the trend and the effects. There was precious little discussion of climate change during the presidential campaign and most other political races this year. That may strike some as a little surprising, given the weather that's been plaguing much of the nation over the past couple of years, which has cost billions of dollars of damage and taken hundreds of lives. Maybe politicians think that climate change has become the new third rail of politics (it used to be Social Security, but these days everyone's talking about Social Security), but on this issue they're way behind everyone else. They need to catch up and start making some real proposals on how to mitigate both the trend and the effects -­‐ and they need to start doing so as soon as new members are seated in Congress and President Barack Obama renews his oath in January. The people are paying attention. According to a national survey released Tuesday, a large majority of Americans (77%) say global warming should be a "very high," "high" or "medium" priority for the president and Congress. The survey by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication also reported that nearly all Americans (92%) say the president and Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a "very high" (31%), "high" (38%) or "medium" priority (23%). And a large majority of Americans (88%) say the United States should make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs. Options have been laid out: A tax on carbon as suggested by former Secretary of State George Shultz and others is one idea. The Save Our Climate Act, for example, would have required industry to pay a steadily rising fee on carbon pollution and given much of the revenue back to households to cushion against rising prices. But there are other options, too. Cap-­‐
and-­‐trade is a policy that conservatives once favored and then reviled. It deserves another look. Certainly further developing alternative sources of energy that don't add to greenhouse gas emissions -­‐ such as wind, U.S. CITIZENS: MAKE AN EFFORT ON solar, water and nuclear -­‐ is GLOBAL WARMING an option that could mitigate climate change as According to a national survey released Tuesday by the well as create new jobs. And Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the conservation -­‐ including George Mason University Center for Climate Change tighter fuel standards for Communication: vehicles and programs such • A large majority (77%) say global warming should as Wisconsin's Focus on be a "very high" (18%), "high" (25%) or "medium" Energy -­‐ also can be a priority (34%) for the president and Congress. One critical tool. in four (23%) says it should be a low priority. Politicians who refuse to • Nearly all Americans (92%) say the president and see the importance of the Congress should make developing sources of creating such tools are clean energy a "very high" (31%), "high" (38%) or ignoring science and the "medium" priority (23%). Very few say it should be increasing concerns among a low priority (8%). their constituents. • A large majority of Americans (88%) say the As the Journal Sentinel's United States should make an effort to reduce Thomas Content noted in global warming, even if it has economic costs. A an article Monday, concern plurality (44%) favors a medium-­‐scale effort, even is rising across the board. if it has moderate economic costs. One in four Farmers, industry and (24%) supports a large-­‐scale effort even if there homeowners are trying to are large economic costs. figure out how to deal with • One in five (19%) supports a small-­‐scale effort, increasing droughts, even if it has small economic costs. wildfires, floods and • Americans say that corporations and industry weather events such as (71%), citizens themselves (66%), the U.S. superstorm Sandy. Just ask Congress (60%) and the president (53%) should residents of New York and do more to address global warming. New Jersey if government • Six in 10 Americans (61%) say the U.S. should officials need to do reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions something about climate regardless of what other countries do. change. Climate scientists say Majorities also support funding more research into the heat and weather events renewable energy sources (73%), providing tax rebates for of the past year are just an people who purchase energy-­‐efficient vehicles or solar introduction to what could panels (73%), regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as a lie ahead, and some are pollutant (66%), eliminating all subsidies for the fossil-­‐fuel saying it's happening faster industry (59%) and expanding offshore drilling for oil and than expected. natural gas off the U.S. coast (58%). Content reported that University of Wisconsin researchers are norm is one 100-­‐degree day every five working on refined climate models that years. offer a more localized picture of a The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warming Wisconsin and a warming Great reported that this year's drought and heat Lakes region. Among their findings: years produced record high water such as 2012 -­‐ with three 100-­‐degree temperatures in Lake Michigan and days in Milwaukee -­‐ will be closer to the contributed to record low lake levels for new normal by midcentury. The current Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. It isn't just summer. Winter as we know it is changing, climatologist Steve Vavrus told Content. Research recently completed by Vavrus and a colleague on lake ice found that based on warming temperatures that are on the horizon, Lake Mendota in Madison will have years when the ice never forms, an extremely unusual event. And if you visit resorts in northern Wisconsin that cater to snowmobilers and skiers, they'll tell you they're hurting because of a lack of the usual heavy snow in recent years. Insurance companies are paying attention: Last month, Content reported, the global reinsurance company Munich Re, a leading company in the business of providing reinsurance, or insurance for insurance companies, found that North America has experienced a nearly fivefold increase in extreme weather disasters since 1980. When insurance companies start paying attention, something real is going on. Climate change is real. It's happening now. It's exacerbated by humans. And no one is doing much about it. Obama and Congress have to change that. OPED, NOVEMBER 11, 2012
Sandy latest warning that climate change must be
addressed
By Catherine Hobbs
NORMAN — On Oct. 29, the Transcript’s
lead editorial was from a Pennsylvania
newspaper praising the U.S. for its oil boom
that will make the U.S. surpass Saudi Arabia
as the world’s largest oil producer. The very
same day, Hurricane Sandy, popularly termed
“Frankenstorm,” swept up the Eastern
seaboard, hitting Pennsylvania hard and
killing more than 100 people, potentially
costing as much as $50 billion.
Unfortunately, Sandy is not the first and
won’t be the last extreme weather event to be
linked to climate change. And while it is good
to achieve energy independence, boosting oil
production will not help us avoid the
consequences of climate change, which may
produce global instability far worse than that
caused by dependence on the Middle East for
oil.
In fact, it would be better for us in the long
run to leave our oil in the ground and develop
alternative sources of energy that don’t
produce greenhouse gases, those which raise
the temperature of the climate’s atmosphere.
Yet most people around here can’t imagine
the shift to a new energy system.
Norman citizens, like most people in our
country, can’t imagine doing anything but
doing more of what we are already doing,
even if it does have severe consequences
down the road that their children will have to
suffer.
Not only conservatives talk about the evil
of having the government pick the winners
and losers in economic battles, yet this has
already happened in energy. The figure $4
billion is the most conservative number given
for subsidies from taxpayers provided to the
oil and gas industry every year.
Sen. Tom Coburn needs to get on this in
his anti-government waste campaign. We
need to begin by realizing the dire
consequences of atmospheric warming and
trying to imagine a future in which we use
much less petroleum.
The influence of global warming can be
seen in the circumstances that have come
together to make Sandy one of the most
destructive storms on record. This link has
been made by Dr. Jennifer Francis, research
professor at the Institute of Marine and
Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University.
“Warm ocean temperature is one of the
main ingredients necessary for tropical
storms to form and survive, so the fact that
the oceans, in general, are warming and that
sea-surface temperatures are now at an alltime record high off northeast North America
suggests that any late-forming storms that
move up this way, like Sandy, should be able
to survive longer and track farther
northward,” Francis said.
A rapidly warming Arctic, punctuated by
record loss of sea ice this year, also has
weakened the jet stream’s west winds in the
Northern Hemisphere, creating waves that go
farther north and south, Francis said: “As
those waves get larger, they tend to move
more slowly, which means the weather
associated with them also moves more slowly
... leading to increased chances of the types of
extreme weather associated with ‘stuck’
weather patterns.”
In other words, global warming puts more
energy into these storms by warming the
oceans. And September had the second
highest global ocean temperatures on record.
Global warming in general has put our
climate on “steroids,” making disasters like
Sandy more likely to happen. We have
already seen this in Oklahoma with a record
number of weather-related disasters last
summer. The federal crop insurance
payments — again, taxpayer dollars — for
last year were at record levels because of the
worst drought in 50 years across two-thirds
of the nation.
“This is a wake-up call for the next
Congress to pass meaningful climate
legislation,” said Mark Reynolds, Citizens
Climate Lobby director.
CCL promotes legislation to place a
steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels,
returning all the revenue from that fee to
households. Such legislation will help us
make the necessary transition to clean energy
without inflicting economic hardship on the
American people.
Energy independence is a goal we should
seek. But in order to safeguard our future
weather, we should invest in clean energies
like solar and wind as well as promote
legislation to curb our use of petroleum.
If we want to imagine a future without
catastrophic weather patterns, we should
work to imagine a different system of energy
that doesn’t continue to warm our
atmosphere.
Catherine Hobbs is with Citizens
Climate Lobby.
WEB LINK http://normantranscript.com/opinion/x1499661860/Sandy-latest-warning-that-climatechange-must-be-addressed
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 11 NormanTranscript Hobbs OPED Sandy latest warning that climate change
must be addressed
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 10, 2012
Superstorm Sandy, energy policy and climate change
Re “Obama finally talks climate change; green industry wants more,” Nov. 7
While the climate system has many tipping
points, Superstorm Sandy may have marked
one of the more important in terms of public
opinion. At the very least, it has blown away
the absurd political taboo against talking
about a subject we can easily do something
about.
For instance, action in the form of a 100%
revenue-neutral carbon fee, with all revenue
recycled back to citizens, would reduce our
dependency on foreign oil, help American
businesses and boost the economy by putting
money into the hands of the poor and the
jobless.
While tragic in its destruction of life and
property, if Sandy is the event that finally
pushes us to take substantive action, it will
add a silver lining to an otherwise dark cloud.
Daniel Richter
San Diego
The biggest threat to this country is
climate change. No sovereign nation can have
policies that increase the strength of
hurricanes in the Atlantic, increase the length
of droughts across the Midwest or cause mass
health effects across the country due to the
warmest summer in decades.
The economic cost of nature's reactions
will far exceed the cost of any global conflict:
compare estimates of Sandy's costs to a
month of war in Afghanistan.
The U.S. government needs to confront
this urgent threat by implementing effective
policies at home and in the global
community.
Jeff Tippmann
Del Mar
Why wasn't climate change brought up in
the presidential debates? Is this topic truly so
politically unpalatable?
The economy and the environment are
joined; the best way to begin combating
climate change is with a market-based
solution like a carbon tax, as well as
investments in green tech-sector jobs and
science education, all of which benefit the U.S.
economy.
Tristan M. Carland
San Diego
WEB LINK http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-letters-superstorm-sandy-energy-policyand-climate-change-20121109,0,5036674.story
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 10 LATimes Richter LTE & Tippman LTE & Carland LTE Superstorm Sandy energy
policy and climate change
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 9, 2012
Weather will continue to worsen
Mother Nature has sent us a message. If
we keep adding carbon dioxide to the air, she
will send messages more frequently. The 100year storm becomes the three-year storm.
Hot summer days meld into oppressive
drought and return summer after summer.
Hurricanes widen, move more slowly and
release more water. Sea levels continue to
rise. It’s a fact of life that CO {-2} in the
atmosphere retains heat. Heating up the
Earth causes dry areas to become drier, hot
areas to become hotter and wet areas to
become wetter.
Since the Industrial Revolution began,
we’ve added 70 percent more CO {-2} to the
air. That’s too much to maintain a steady,
human-friendly flow of weather. This year
testifies to the extreme weather scientists
have predicted: droughts, downpours,
flooding and wildfires. It’s New Jersey and
New York this time — it could be Maryland
and Virginia next time.
A carbon fee and dividend is the first step
in solving our problem and one that our new
Congress can enact. By placing a steadily
rising fee on coal, oil and natural gas and
returning the revenue to American
households, we can begin to move our
economy to clean energy, grow American
businesses, foster entrepreneurship and
inspire international cooperation.
This may be hard for some to accept,
especially those heavily invested in dirty
energy. However, that is a decision we must
make to ensure the welfare of our children
and grandchildren.
Judith Nelson
Henrico
WEB LINK http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/mailbag/letter_to_the_editor/letters-to-the-editorfor-nov/article_fae0298d-e662-5f1e-bf39-1cee7bfe44a4.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 09 RichmondTimesD Nelson LTE Weather will continue to worsen
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 9, 2012
Fallacies of climate-change skeptics
Thank you for helping to give climate
change the visibility it deserves ("Climate
change an issue again," Monday). However,
mentioned in your editorial without comment
is one of the many fallacies used by climatechange skeptics.
According to Mitt Romney, "there have
been many times in the Earth's history when
temperatures have been warmer than they
are now." That is true, but completely
irrelevant to our current crisis. It is equally
true, but irrelevant, that 650 million years
ago glaciers covered the Earth from the poles
to the tropics. What skeptics seem to suggest
is that we will somehow just adapt to the
changes. This is highly misleading for several
reasons.
First, climatologists know that prior
changes in world climate happened over
much longer time periods than we are seeing
now. Second, the past two million years have
been dominated by much colder climates
than the past 10,000 years in which human
agriculture and human civilization developed.
We are evolved for colder conditions than
global warming is bringing on.
Third, while our remote ancestors
apparently survived many climate challenges,
they had much greater mobility than we have
now. We cannot simply move New York City
or Tokyo, and we cannot simply move all our
Midwestern farms and infrastructure to
Canada. And, finally, the changes that we are
inflicting on ocean chemistry are
unprecedented. We are turning the oceans
sour. All of these observations are supported
by a great deal of evidence gathered over
many years by the world community of
climate scientists.
It is hard to know whether climate-change
skeptics are engaged in willful ignorance or
something more sinister funded by the
carbon-based fuel industries.
Alan Windle
Philadelphia
WEB LINK http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-09/news/35017546_1_climate-change-climate-changeskeptics-earth
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 09 PhilaInquirer Windle LTE Fallacies of climate-change skeptics
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 9, 2012
Tax carbon-based fuels to reduce global warming
I was pleased to see climate change
mentioned in your Nov. 4 editorial, “PostSandy questions to ponder.” But I was
disappointed that it was mentioned but
briefly.
While Sandy’s power is still fresh in our
minds, it’s imperative to make the connection
between extreme weather events like this
and the broader phenomenon of global
warming and climate change, or more aptly,
climate disruption.
As climate scientists have cautioned, we
cannot directly link climate change to any one
event. But as Kevin Trenberth, senior
scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, said, “The answer to
the oft-asked question of whether an event is
caused by climate change is that it is the
wrong question. All weather events are
affected by climate change because the
environment in which they occur is warmer
and moister than it used to be.”
The elevated warmth and moisture create
greater energy, increasing a storm’s power.
Then you have the problem of higher
storm surge resulting from sea level rise due
to the melting of glaciers and ice caps.
Unprecedented storms like Sandy are
exactly the kinds of extreme weather events
that scientists have been warning us about for
years, with little apparent effect. But it’s not
too late to act.
We can reduce global warming by placing
a fee on carbon-based fuels and returning the
revenue to households — a bill to do this is
now in Congress, HR 3242. This would help
us move to clean, renewable energy.
Better to do this sooner than later.
Tony Giordano
Middletown
WEB LINK http://www.app.com/article/20121110/NJOPINION02/311100017/Tax-carbon-based-fuelsreduce-global-warming
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 9 AsburyParkPress Giordano LTE Tax carbon-based fuels to reduce global
warming
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 8, 2012
Tax carbon
In your endorsement of President Barack
Obama "Our children's America" (Editorials,
Oct. 28) and in "The president's big night"
(Editorials, Nov. 7), you suggest that future
generations may revile us for failing to
address deficit spending by the federal
government. I believe that our descendants
will in fact scorn us for a different reason.
Despite the overwhelming consensus of the
scientific community that the use of fossil
fuels is fundamentally altering our climate,
we continue to bury our collective heads in
the sand. President Barack Obama and Gov.
Mitt Romney each gushed in debates that
their policies would increase production of
oil, natural gas and coal in the event of their
election. Unlike the problem of the deficit,
which requires only political will and
cooperation to resolve, fossil fuels released
into the atmosphere today will remain there
for decades.
However the problems of the deficit and
global warming may not actually be
unrelated. A tax on carbon, as part of a
comprehensive overhaul of the tax code,
could reduce the deficit and lessen our
reliance on dirty fossil fuels. It would spur
innovation in alternate sources of energy and
help bring renewable energy industries to
scale by making them cost competitive with
our existing infrastructure.
The problem with such an innovative
solution is that much of our government has
been bought and paid for by fossil fuel
industries and/or labor unions representing
workers in the fossil fuel industries such as
coal miners. As long as those resistant to
change can buy influence, innovative
solutions that challenge the status quo will
probably never occur. Sadly, those that follow
us will pay the price.
Michael McInerney
Chicago
WEB LINK http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-tax-carbon20121108,0,3405641.story?dssReturn
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 08 ChicagoTribune McInerney LTE Tax carbon
OPED, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
Cut subsidies to oil firms to save money in budget
Re: Numbers prove we are on the right track, column by Brian Lilley (Nov. 2).
In the article on the fiscal record of the
Harper government, Lilley asked us what
cuts [we would] we make.
I would cut the $1.3 billion in subsidies
to fossil fuel companies. They are the
richest corporations on the planet. Why
do they need our tax dollars?
I would take it a step further. I would
correct the biggest market failure ever -according
cording the Sir Nicholas Stern and
many other leading economists -- the
failure of the fossil fuel industry to pay
the true cost their commodity is having
on our economy.
The National Roundtable for the
Environment and the Economy predicted
in 2011 that climate
imate change will cost our
economy $5 billion a year by 2020.
Does the average Canadian really want
to pay the multibillion-dollar-a-year
year bills
caused by greenhouse gases or do they
want the heavy users of fossil fuels to
pay?
In August, the executive director
ctor of the
International Energy Agency, Maria van
der Hoeven, told a Canadian audience that
"pricing carbon is one of the key elements
to ensure that what people pay for energy
reflects its true costs. That must be done
if the world is to move toward a
sustainable energy future."
Since Lilly is seeking a reduction in the
Canadian budget, I would suggest
implementation of a carbon tax that does
not increase the money in the coffers of
the government, but returns the money
directly back to the people. This iss called a
revenue neutral tax.
A federal carbon tax on GHG emissions
that gives the revenue directly back to
citizens is called "carbon fee and
dividend." Carbon fee and dividend is the
one recommended by James Hansen,
director of the NASA Goddard Institute
Institu
for Space Studies. It is revenue neutral
and rewards the behaviour we want to
encourage by teaching people about their
carbon footprint at the cash register.
A carbon fee and dividend would also
protect low-income
income people because most
low-income people tend to be low--carbon
consumers as well.
A carbon fee and dividend tax system
for carbon pollution should appeal to
conservatives because it would create
jobs in a variety of energy industries and
thus appeal to their base across Canada
and not just conservatives with
investments in the coal, gas and oil
industries.
According to Foreign Affairs Minister
John Baird, Canadians have rejected a
carbon tax. Did he get the memo that B.C.
implemented a revenue neutral carbon
tax shift and, based on a 2012 poll, that
tha
almost 70% of British Columbians
support it?
Australia and Norway, both producers
of fossil fuels, have carbon taxes. Scotland
has just announced it will have 100%
renewable electricity and 40% reduction
in CO2 emissions by 2020, role-modelling
modelling
for the world that transitioning to a low
carbon economy is doable.
Alternatively, Canadians can continue
on with our obscene carbon footprint
(about 15 tons per person compared to
the world average of five tons per person)
potentially become a global pariahs and
miss out on the jobs and innovations
being created in the renewable energy
race.
The direct costs of the damages by
Superstorm Sandy on Oct. 29 have topped
$20 billion. How much more global
warming will we endure before we realize
that Canada's current high carbon
economy could destroy the stable climate
that sustains civilization, turn the page
and start transitioning to a low-carbon
economy?
Cathy Orlando
Citizens Climate Lobby Greater
Sudbury
WEB LINK http://www.thesudburystar.com/2012/11/07/cut-subsidies-to-oil-firms-to-savemoney-in-budget
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 07 SudburyStar Orlando OPED Cut subsidies to oil firms to save money in
budget
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
Adapt or take action
Two weeks ago, we had some early snow.
The weather system that delivered it
continued eastward. Combined with frigid air
from Canada, that system helped pull
Hurricane Sandy landward with increased
force to batter the Northeast.
Such storms should set us thinking about
climate. Not just to admit it’s changing, but to
take it as a challenge. Recall last summer’s
droughts and wildfires, or the fast-moving
“derecho” thunderstorms in the Northeast
that left millions without power? Or, not so
long ago, the floods of Hurricane Katrina?
More and more, Americans now
understand that climate change is real, and
know that human actions help produce it.
Should we “just adapt” to impacts like last
summer’s droughts and fire, or the trauma we
see now in the Northeast?
We have a choice. When carbon costs
more, less carbon will be burned, and cleaner
ways to power our society will become
opportunities.
We can limit the amount of fossil fuel we
burn. We can legislate right now to put a
rising fee on carbon and return the proceeds
to the public.
Why adapt to something frightening when
we can work together for a cleaner, safer,
more productive way of life?
Robert Speiser
Salt Lake City
WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55212003-82/adapt-carbon-northeast-ago.html.csp
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 07 SaltLakeTribune Speiser LTE Adapt or take action
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
Will we skip the politics and heal the planet?
Untimely, unfortunate, shortsighted and
ironic are words that come to mind to
describe facetious comments made at the
2012 Republican convention that President
Obama wants to stop the rise of oceans and
heal the planet.
These comments were untimely because it
is becoming increasingly apparent that such
leadership is exactly what we need.
Unfortunate because the impacts of rising
seas, droughts and storms are not a political
issue, they are a humanitarian issue.
Shortsighted because the economy and
jobs do not go far enough if they do not factor
in the health and well-being of present and
future generations.
Can and will we be courageous enough to
look beyond the politics and recognize the
looming humanitarian issue in front of us and
then take steps to “begin to stop the rise of
oceans and heal the planet”?
Rachel Mark
Derry Twp.
WEB LINK http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2012/11/will_we_skip_the_politics_and.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 07 PatriotNews Mark LTE Will we skip the politics and heal the planet
OPED, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
On TV, They Talk About the
Weather, but Not Climate Change
Steve Valk
Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby
Superstorm Sandy was a huge wake-up
call on climate change for America. Many of
our nation's TV meteorologists, however,
missed that call, and with it the opportunity
to educate the public about the impact global
warming has on our weather.
For some unfathomable reason, the
majority of folks who deliver weather
forecasts to millions of Americans do not
accept the science of climate change and
won't bring it up on their telecasts. It isn't
that most meteorologists are climate change
skeptics, as Inside Climate News
reported earlier this year; just the ones who
are on television. They comprise about 10
percent of the membership of the American
Meteorological Society, which recently
revised its official statement supporting of the
scientific consensus on climate change.
What does the AMS say about Sandy and
global warming?
While the organization hasn't released an
official statement, AMS Senior Policy Fellow
Bob Corell co-authored a piece in Politico this
week, saying that "we should consider Sandy
-- and other recent extreme weather events an early taste of a climate-changed world, and
a grim preview of the even worse to come,
particularly if we continue to pump more
carbon pollution from smokestacks and
tailpipes up into the atmosphere."
Pretty strong and unequivocal. But it falls
on deaf ears where many TV meteorologists
are concerned. In Atlanta, here's how 30-year
weatherman Glenn Burns at WSB-TV
responded to a viewer's email when asked
about the AMS statement on climate change:
"Thanks for your concern on climate
change. We are also in the middle of an
extreme sunspot cycle which correlates
perfectly with the extreme heat this summer.
Not only that, the NWS [National Weather
Service] temperature sensors at the airport
are not accurate. NASA even called me
personally and told me they were 5-6 degrees
warmer than surrounding areas. We need to
learn how to deal with climate change. Our
climate has been changing since the
beginning of time. Only the civilizations that
adapted to it have survived. That should be
our goal."
Wow.
Sadly, Burns' response is not atypical. Over
at Channel 5 in Atlanta, another weatherman
with over three decades on the air, Ken Cook,
talked to a volunteer from Citizens Climate
Lobby. Among other things, he discounted the
findings of the International Panel on Climate
Change, calling it a "highly politicized group."
As the conversation moved to clean energy,
he said that $500 million was wasted on
Solyndra, a favorite talking point among
Republicans this year. The implication from
Cook was that global warming is some hoax
perpetrated to make money for the
renewable energy industry.
The good news, however, is that there are
some TV forecasters who did connect the
dots, as evidenced in [a report from KXAN in
Austin, Texas].
And a report from ABC News10 in San
Diego included an interview with IPCC author
Dr. Richard Somerville, who told viewers
there is only one way to slow the warming
process: "Reduce the world's dependency on
coal and oil and natural gas. This is quite
doable."
While these stations have taken a
responsible approach on climate change,
many more fail to bring it up, even in the face
of major catastrophes.
It's time to demand that people who
report the weather let their audiences know
where the bombs are coming from whenever
there is a "Pearl Harbor moment" on climate
change like Sandy.
If your TV station was remiss in
connecting the dots on Superstorm
Sandy, Forecast The Facts has a tool to help
you connect with your local meteorologist
and express your concerns.
If that proves fruitless, try asking them to
connect those dots with a letter to the
editor in your local newspaper.
Nothing gets someone's attention like
seeing their name in the paper.
Follow Steve Valk on
Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate
WEB LINK http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-valk/on-tv-they-talk-about-the_b_2087864.html
CCL FILENAME: 2012 11 07 HuffingtonPost Valk OPED On TV, They Talk About the Weather, but Not
Climate Change
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
After superstorm Sandy, take action against climate
change
Congratulations on your sensible editorial
(“Amid Hurricane Sandy, climate change talk
is in order,” Oct. 30) connecting the dots
between the recent superstorm Sandy and
the general trend toward increasing intensity
in extreme weather events.
Peer-reviewed science tells us that the
global climate system is changing and holding
more moisture, heat and energy. Your
editorial mentioned the measurable increase
in “freak weather.” Scientist Katherine
Hayhoe calls it “global weirding.” It is getting
worse, but it’s not too late to do something
about it.
Those who continue to deny global climate
change and to push fossil fuels are only
delaying the day when we can get serious
about facing this challenge. We can act to
mitigate climate change by having a fee on
any carbon-based fuels and returning the
revenue to households (such a bill is already
in Congress, HR3242). This will help us shift
to renewable energy and encourage
entrepreneurship for a thriving, sustainable
economy. We can adapt, as well. But it all
starts with facing reality.
We do not need to fear the future if we and
our elected officials have the courage to act
on the facts, roll up our sleeves and work for
a bright and safer global home.
Lynn Dash
Lincroft
WEB LINK http://blog.nj.com/ledgerletters/2012/11/after_superstorm_sandy_take_ac.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 07 Dash L LTE After superstorm Sandy, take action against climate change
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 6, 2012
Energy price points
Your Oct. 13 Progress Energy article
outlined the effect that increased energy costs
will have on North Carolina residents. While
the increased utility rates that Progress is
proposing may not be a welcome change for
low- to middle-income families, perhaps the
hike in prices is needed.
The majority of energy in North Carolina
comes from sources with hefty environmental
costs that are not totaled on a monthly power
bill, even after these increased rates take
effect. In addition, both offshore drilling and
hydraulic fracking are on the table in our
state (the latter of which has already been
scheduled to begin in 2014 if nothing is
done).
What Americans need are policies that will
protect the environment from energy sources
that borrow against our future, while still
maintaining a manageable price point for the
consumer. A carbon tax that is levied on the
supply side and redistributed evenly among
every American would ensure that alternative
energies that protect the environment are as
competitive as they should be, while still
protecting Americans from the price burden.
Erik Vosburgh
Cary
WEB LINK http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/06/2466203/erik-vosburgh-energy-pricepoints.html
This letter was also published in the Chapel Hill News and the Durham News papers.
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2012/11/06/73680/your-letters-nov-7.html
http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2012/11/06/213718/your-letters-nov-7.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 06 News&Observer Vosburgh LTE Energy price points
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 6, 2012
Climate change is caused by man
Re: Free Press editorial "A silly war on
fossil fuels" (Nov. 3). It's easy to feel that the
issue of climate change is trivial as the
weather turns cool. However, this year we've
been given yet another wake up call in the
form of Hurricane Sandy. Yes, climate change
did not cause Sandy, but only in the same way
freezing rain and icy roads do not cause car
accidents. Climate change does, however,
create unfavorable conditions that make
extreme weather events, such as Sandy, more
likely.
These extreme weather events are one of
the hidden costs of fossil fuels (along with air
pollution, water pollution, mountain top
removal, prolonged wars in the Middle East,
etc.) that make the cost of gas- and coalgenerated electricity appear so cheap
compared to renewable energy sources,
because the hidden costs are born by others
throughout our (and the world's) economy.
If you doubt that the majority of climate
change is being caused by man, please take
the time to look at what the experts in this
area think. An overwhelming majority of
climate scientists agree climate change is
being caused by the burning of fossil fuels and
the research of the minority that disagree
have mostly been funded by oil companies.
Dan Cooper
Ringgold, Ga.
WEB LINK http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/nov/06/1106-letters-to-the-editorchattanooga/?opinionletters
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 05 ChattaTimesFPress Cooper LTE Climate change is caused by man
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 4, 2012
Extreme weather trend undeniable
Global warming has put our weather on
steroids, making disasters like Hurricane
Sandy more likely to happen. The frequency
and severity of these extreme weather events
should be a wake-up call, but politicians
won’t act unless people like you and me tell
them to. What’s required is a strong market
signal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
while investing heavily in renewable energy
and infrastructure to support it.
One mechanism is to put a transparent and
predictable fee on carbon, and return the
revenue to Canadians to help them during
this transition. The more we contact
parliamentarians about this issue, the more
likely they will take note. Too much is at stake
to not take action.
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto
Hurricanes like Sandy, heat waves,
draughts, fires and floods will continue to
cause economic nightmares unless something
is done to stop the increase in the severe
weather seen in the past few years. The
excess carbon from the burning of fossil fuel
is ending up in the atmosphere and creating
havoc with the climate.
Government must end fossil fuel subsidies
and put a price on carbon. This will spur the
renewable energy industry, which would not
produce carbon emissions.
Sharon Howarth
Toronto
WEB LINK http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1282098--extreme-weather-trendundeniable
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 04 TorontoStar McNamara LTE & Howarth LTE Extreme weather trend
undeniable
NEWARK, N.J. EDITORIAL, NOV. 4, 2012 Sandy is our wake-­up call on climate change By the Star-­Ledger Editorial Board Something is terribly wrong with our
climate, and it’s past time to face that
reality.
Sandy was not an isolated event. We
have seen many more freak storms,
wildfires, landslides and droughts. Nine
of the 10 hottest years on record have
occurred since 2000. All this is exactly
what climate scientists warned us about.
Yet somehow, this issue got caught
up in an ideological debate about the
size and role of government when it
should have focused on the science. The
lives lost and billions of dollars in
damage is the price we pay for that.
Climate change deniers can still find
an isolated scientist or two to challenge
conventional wisdom. But every major
scientific organization says climate
change is a serious problem and that
mankind contributes to it.
A solution will be expensive, and
that too has delayed action. It requires
increasing the cost of fossil fuels to
encourage conservation, and to make
alternative forms of clean energy
competitive. We must impose a capand-trade system to limit greenhouse
gas emissions, or a carbon tax. This is
the political challenge.
In that fight, Sandy may help tip the
balance. The storm didn’t just reshape
our coastline; it reformed political
alliances. After seeing his city get
clobbered, New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, a political independent,
went so far as to give Obama a lastminute endorsement for his action on
climate change, saying Sandy brought
the stakes of this election “into sharp
relief.”
We hope those winds reach the
swing states. Undecided voters are as
likely as Obama supporters to believe
that global warming is caused by human
pollution, polls show. And in eight
battleground states, swing voters favor
clean air standards and clean energy
policies.
The Republican Party platform
opposes a cap-and-trade system to limit
greenhouse gas emissions, and any tax
increase. Mitt Romney has received
enormous contributions from fossil fuel
industries and has been campaigning
hard in coal country, denouncing
regulations imposed by the Obama
administration. And don’t forget his big
laugh line at the GOP convention:
“President Obama promised to begin to
slow the rise of the oceans, and to heal
the planet.”
Not so funny now, when you
consider a storm such as Sandy. It
makes sense to levy fees on carbon
polluters who contribute to weather
calamity. Under Obama’s watch, we’ve
seen the largest increase in clean,
renewable energy in our nation’s
history. He’s moved to reduce carbon
pollution from two of the largest
sources: cars and power plants.
Yet companies including PSEG say
they’re holding off on investing further
in cleaner energy, such as nuclear
plants, until they know the government
will ensure that carbon polluters pay for
the damage they are causing.
The lessons of Sandy — and
Tuesday’s vote — could bring the answer
they’re waiting for.
WEB LINK: http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/11/sandy_is_our_wake-up_call_on_c.html
CCL FILE NAME: 2012 11 04 NewarkStarLedger Edboard EDITORIAL Sandy is our wake-up
call on climate change
KENOSHA, WISCONSIN
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 4, 2012
Sandy is latest hint of global warming
Superstorm Sandy is the latest of a series
of extreme weather events in the U.S.
First, the nation experienced its warmest
March since record keeping began in 1895.
This was followed by a severe and extensive
summer drought and heat wave.
In January a windstorm blew winds of up
to 90 mph from Chicago to D.C. Arctic ice
extent and volume reached another record
minimum and it did so an entire month
before the end of the melting season.
Together, these extreme events point in
one direction: human-made global warming
is making our climate more chaotic, more
dangerous and more destructive. Our political
leadership must stop dragging its collective
feet before we’ve so altered the climate that it
is impossible to reverse the damage.
Happily we can avoid catastrophic climate
change while reviving the American
economy: place a price on the emission of
carbon dioxide pollution and return the
revenues to American households. This will
spur the construction of the low-carbon
technologies (sun, wind, and grid-scale
energy storage) that will preserve a livable
climate.
Ross Astoria
Kenosha
WEB LINK http://www.kenoshanews.com/opinion/459853372_459853372.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 04 KenoshaNews Astoria LTE Sandy is latest hint of global warming
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 4, 2012
Time to talk about climate change
Yes, let's talk about why despite so much
climate silence, the power and mendacity of
the fossil fuel industry has intimidated the
American political and media system into
remaining silent about the chief threat to our
existence ("Now can we talk about it?" Nov.
1).
And let's talk about the required solution
to the problem: a rebated or revenue-neutral
carbon fee that will protect consumers while
inducing the energy industry to ramp up
investment in clean, reliable power. It will
take political courage to make this solution a
reality. Let's make sure the White House and
Congress can summon that courage.
D.R. Tucker
Boston
WEB LINK http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-climate-letter20121105,0,825568.story
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 04 BaltimoreSun Tucker LTE Time to talk about climate change
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 3, 2012
Weather on steroids
Why are we getting more severe
hurricanes and other wild weather events?
The 100-year storm is now happening every
few years. It’s weather on steroids. The
oceans are getting warmer and the air wetter,
which is fueling these storms. To make
matters worse, the Arctic is also warming,
weakening the jet stream, which slows down
the weather systems and makes them last
longer. The more we continue to burn heat-
trapping greenhouse gases, the more chances
these not-so-freak weather events will play
havoc on our lives. Transitioning to clean
energy is better for our economies, health and
wellbeing, and a much better investment for
our kids.
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto
WEB LINK http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/02/letters-to-the-editor-nov-3-2
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 03 TorontoStar McNamara LTE Weather on steroids
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 3, 2012
Warming ocean
My cousin’s daughter raced from her
flooding Brooklyn apartment with her baby,
not even having time to bring along diapers.
Her story puts a face to the Hurricane Sandy
disaster that The Tribune documented so well
in “Sandy slams into N.J. coast, darkens NYC’
(Tribune, Oct. 30). Others lost everything they
had, some even their lives.
This powerful and destructive storm came
with identifiable markers of human-caused
climate change. With the Northeast Atlantic
ocean 5 degrees warmer than average, the
storm carried more water and traveled
farther north than storms have in the past.
Also, a record storm surge rose above an
ocean level that was higher than it was just 30
years ago. The northeast seas have risen four
times faster than the global average.
Why not take this unprecedented, deadly
storm as a wake-up call? The human use of
fossil fuels has caused a dangerous disruption
to our climate.
Dave Folland
Sandy
WEB LINK http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55184761-82/sandy-storm-human-ocean.html.csp
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 03 SaltLakeTribune Folland LTE Warming ocean
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 3, 2012
Time to act
The scenes of cataclysm in New York and
New Jersey that we are seeing every night on
TV come from a real-life horror movie that we
have created. What happened in New York is
what climate scientists have been predicting
for years. What terrorists have failed to do flood the tunnels and close down the city Frankenstorm did.
The seas are rising and becoming more
violent. Before Mitt Romney mocked
President Obama's commitment to slow the
rise of the sea level, I had some hope that we
were about to unite behind a movement to
save our planet.
We are experiencing climate change, and
there will be more storms, and worse, as the
seas warm and rise, as we lose arctic summer
ice, and as the world heats up. We cannot
wait for more storms of the century. It is time
to tell Congress to make the world safer for
our descendants. We need to start to stop
consuming fossil fuels, the driver of climate
change.
A carbon tax would reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels and support the
growth of sustainable electrical generation wind, solar, and geothermal - as well as build
a national smart grid, generating long-term,
well-paying jobs and returning
manufacturing to this country. For the sake of
our children, it is time to act.
Ronald Fischman
Philadelphia
WEB LINK http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20121103_Letters_to_the_Editor.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 03 PhilaInquirer Fischman LTE Time to Act
TORONTO, ONTARIO
OPED, NOVEMBER 3, 2012
Readers show little interest in Sandy —
but lots in Trudeau
PAUL RUSSELL
The destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy
dominated our news coverage all week. Yet very
few letters to the editor came in about it (which
perhaps shows it was not a huge concern for most
Canadians).
Some readers questioned why certain pundits
were speculating that the storm would help Barack
Obama’s re-election bid.
“Can someone explain all this emphasis by the
liberal press on how Mr. Obama is ‘looking
presidential?’” asked Simon Anstey on Thursday.
“Yesterday, he barely managed to descend the
stairs of Air Force One without falling down. Then
he wandered aimlessly around New Jersey,
promising funds that he cannot afford or deliver.
He undertook to rebuild everything as far as the
eye could see — a promise that will evaporate the
second the election is over. Sensible people do not
believe that being able to stand upright and deliver
bossy platitudes at the same time is in any way
‘looking presidential.’ ”
One reader blamed global warming for this
mega-storm.
“Hurricane Sandy is the result of a warming
ocean, wetter air and a rapidly warming Arctic
that’s slowing down the jet stream and making
weather systems last longer,” wrote Cheryl
McNamara. “We thought that global warming was
some faraway phenomenon. Not anymore. Expect
more superstorms, droughts and heat waves. It’s
not about polar bears anymore. It’s about our
safety — a large branch narrowly missed crashing
through my bedroom in Monday’s storm. Do we
continue business as usual, or do we become
innovative?”
Another sided with Terence Corcoran, who
dismissed the role of global warming in his
Tuesday column, “Frankenscience.”
“Mr. Corcoran has done a fine job of explaining
why Hurricane Sandy was not caused by humaninduced global warming,” wrote Tom Simpson.
“However, the real answer why Sandy arrived is
pretty simple: We had millions of humans doing
rain dances from June until August. We just
received what we asked for.”
Two others tied Sandy to a higher power.
“I am writing from Hawaii, after we had a
tsunami warning on Oct. 27,” wrote Candace
Mowry. “Thank goodness that never happened. As
for the nine states that felt the wrath of hurricane
Sandy, that was unfortunate. America has to wake
up! We cannot fight against the Man who sits high
and looks low. He is sending warnings to tell us
that He is still in charge.”
A photo on the front cover of Wednesday’s
National Post showed the destruction in the Breezy
Point neighbourhood in Queen’s, N.Y., where about
100 homes suffered both water and fire damage.
That image focused on a religious statue that
survived the fire.
“This photo so eloquently depicts a tall, totally
unscathed sculptured Mary, Mother of Jesus,
standing amidst the vast, flattened landscape of
debris,” wrote Edmundas Petrauskas. “I see also
the presence of God, in control of His wrath
[directed at those who] taunt His laws, which is
something the agnostics and atheists obviously
don’t see.”
This reader speculated that we will witness
another side affect of Sandy in nine months.
“With the many days of electrical outages up
and down the U.S. coast, next July could bring an
unprecedented spike in the birthrate,” wrote
Marvin Sharpe. “And I suspect that at least 20% of
these ‘storm babies,’ whether male or female, will
be named Sandy.”
– A Wednesday story (“The ‘Trudeau effect’
proves real”) focused on a new Forum Poll that
surveyed “1,735 randomly selected Canadians aged
18 and older.” It found that Justin Trudeau would
not only be elected prime minister if a vote were
held now — he would command a majority Liberal
government. All the Post readers we heard from
seemed astounded by this prediction.
“I have concluded that the pollsters must have
selected the stupidest Canadians alive, or else they
were all Liberals,” wrote Peter McCulloch. “People
over the age of 18, who have studied Canadian
history or economics, cannot possibly support the
offspring of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who basically
created our national debt and will go down in
history as possibly our worst PM. Lord help us.”
Two other letters were published in Thursday’s
paper, each questioning the validity of the poll
results.
“A letter writer sagely suggests this poll,
favouring Justin Trudeau, must have been taken at
a Justin Bieber concert,” wrote Simon Twist.
“Really, what the Liberals should do is elect Mr.
Bieber as their leader. This would ensure the
largest turnout of young voters in history — and
would save the need for a coherent policy.”
– Fashion stories are a regular staple of our
Arts & Life section. But when an image of woman’s
high heel shoe appeared on the front page of the
Financial Post on Tuesday (shown left), this reader
was quick to register his displeasure.
“I was astonished at the sight of this shoe, on
several grounds,” wrote Martin Gough. “In the first
place it is hideous. Second, it must be extremely
uncomfortable. Third, the six-inch heels (or are
they eight-inches?) are an accident waiting to
happen to the unfortunate wearer. I believe these
shoes were designed by an orthopedic surgeon who
feels he is not getting enough work to keep him
from poverty. Despite spending my active life in the
practice of gynecology, it is clear to me that there
are many things about women that I shall never
understand.”
WEB LINK http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/03/paul-russell-readers-show-little-interestin-sandy-but-lots-in-trudeau/
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 03 NationalPost Russell OPED Readers show little interest in Sandy but lots in
Trudeau
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 2, 2012
Climate change reality
Kudos to The Star-Ledger’s editors for
their “Amid Hurricane Sandy, climate change
talk is in order” (Oct. 30). “Let’s get real,” you
said. “Something is terribly amiss.”
The air and the oceans have warmed, sea
level has risen and storms are growing ever
more ferocious and destructive.
As a scientist, as a citizen and as a
grandmother, I’m angry, frightened and
grieving. We need more than just “talk”: We
need action, and we need it yesterday. We
need Congress to pass legislation to curb the
carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil and
gas that are warming up the globe, and to
shift to a clean-energy system.
The fairest, most efficient option is to
enact a market solution: Place a fee on the
carbon in fossil fuels as they enter the
economy, starting low and rising year by
year. Divide up all of the revenue among
American households to shield them from the
impacts of rising fuel prices. The upshot will
be a massive shift of investment into clean
energy within a decade and a surge of new
job creation that can heal the economy as well
as the climate.
Ellie Whitney
East Windsor
WEB LINK http://blog.nj.com/ledgerletters/2012/11/letters_climate_change_fema_an.html
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 02 NewarkStarLedger Whitney E Climate change reality
TORONTO, ONTARIO
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 1, 2012
Growth’s metric
U.S. economist Robert J. Gordon warns of
six headwinds that will make gains in
economic growth even harder (Six Strong
Winds – Oct. 31). Here are two more: global
warming, the rising cost of carbon.
It’s difficult to grow when a chunk of the
country is under water, when massive
droughts increase the price of food, when fuel
prices continue to rise. A carbon tax and
innovation are not diametrically opposed. A
predictable and transparent price on carbon
will send a market signal to invest in the clean
energy revolution. The answer to the current
economic malaise seems glaringly obvious.
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto
WEB LINK http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/letters/nov-1-say-yesoui-to-canadas-manylanguages-and-other-letters-to-the-editor/article4801790/
CCL FILENAME 2012 11 01 GlobeandMail McNamara LTE Growth’s metric
MADISON, WISCONSIN
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOVEMBER 1, 2012
Romney and Ryan have no solution to climate problem
Everything about this election so far has
been about health care, the economy and
jobs. What about the climate? Although 10 of
the warmest summers on record have
occurred in the past 12 years, the candidates
have spent no time talking about climate
change. However, there is a clear difference
between them.
Hurricane Sandy is one more example of
extreme weather events that have become all
too usual; however, this past summer when
Gov. Romney unveiled his energy plan for his
presidency, he failed to mention the effect it
would have on climate. Instead, he said we
need to expand heavily the use of the same
fossil fuels that are pushing the concentration
of carbon in our atmosphere to 400 parts per
million. The great majority of climate
scientists agree we need to keep this level at
around 350 parts per million. In addition, vice
presidential candidate Paul Ryan has
completely and utterly disregarded global
climate change.
In only four years time under President
Obama, production of renewable energy has
significantly increased