This gorgeous June Monday is like a national holiday for the climate movement. Today the EPA releases its new power plant rules that will cut emissions by 30% by 2030, and which represents the administration’s most significant move on climate change – well, ever – but certainly since the stimulus. Congratulations and thanks to EPA chief Gina McCarthy — another brilliant Massachusetts export to federal public service.
The President will need significant political backup. It’s an issue that breaks down along partisan and regional lines — coal state people are obviously not happy. Fortunately it seems that federally, the coal industry doesn’t quite have the juice it used to. So many Democrats are seeing the rule changes as a “manageable” risk.
It was disheartening to see the left fracture during the health care debate in 2009-2010 — an ugly dynamic for which surely the President and his staff (Rahm) deserve some blame as well. And after all that, there was hardly any appetite left for significant climate legislation, so Waxman-Markey failed in the Senate.
There’s reason to think things will be different this time. The climate movement has learned they can’t play a chummy inside game anymore — as if they ever could:
Like their student confederates, the so-called big green groups are mounting their own climate-change campaign this spring, and it looks nothing like the failed efforts of the recent past.
What was a scattering of lawyers, lobbyists and policy analysts with the same goal but no agenda has become a united front, leaders of the groups say. Major organizations like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have strengthened their political operations and grass-roots networks, and they have raised and spent more money than ever before.
Members whose activism had been limited mostly to paying their annual dues have been marshaled by the groups for a number of efforts, like demonstrating in Washington, dogging members of Congress on home leave and blitzing the Environmental Protection Agency with emails and letters.
“The national environmental groups said, ‘We need to do more in-your-face activism,’ ” said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. “You can’t just lobby members of Congress with a poll that says people support you.”
via Environmental Groups Focus on Change by Strengthening Their Political Operations – NYTimes.com.
Most encouraging is the prospect that states may join regional cap-and-trade organizations like RGGI, which have lowered emissions and provided a significant economic benefit through increased efficiency. In Massachusetts, we’re succeeding wildly:
#$^% just got real today. And I’ll sleep a little better. To channel Sully, “Know hope.”
jcohn88 says
I’m happy to see the administration moving forward with this; however, the EPA has been legally required to regulate carbon emission as a pollutant since 2007. In other words, Obama has no excuse for waiting this long in his presidency to take such action, especially considering it became clear in 2010 that no climate legislation would pass out of Congress.
afertig says
I’m curious how you’d respond to this:
“Obama’s climate change regulations are less ambitious than what Republicans were proposing in 2008”
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/2/5770506/remember-when-the-gop-believed-in-climate-change/in/5534613
jconway says
We need to stop debating whether it is real or not. For two reasons. The first, is that by having this ‘debate’ we actually make ‘our’ side seem like a partisan policy position one could have on a topical controversy rather than the cold, hard, scientific truth it actually is. We are in effect, ‘teaching the controversy’ by acting so defensively on this question. And the second reason is we don’t need to, the vast majority of Americans believe it is real, they just don’t seem to think it will affect them.
During my trip to the Philippines to meet my wife to be’s extended family, I regularly saw weather reports, even the ones narrated by the guy in a funny hat, that discussed these issues in depth and without attaching ‘controversy’ to them. Even her cousins, simple farmers and fishermen who had grade school educations, understood they were yielding smaller catches than they had a decade ago, and that harvest time had been increasingly shrinking, and leading to smaller yield for their rice crops. This archipelago is on the front lines of climate change in a way America is perceived to be distant from.
Perhaps reusing global warming, and recasting this as a national security issue is the way to get people off the couches. It’s not strictly an environmental issue, or an animal protection issue, though it certainly is-but also a profound human rights issue. If we can’t concern ourselves with drowning Bangladesh, Maldives, and even the once thriving city of Tacloban in our former colony the Philippines, surely we can concern ourselves with New Orleans, the Jersey Shore, and even closer to home the South Shore and Cape, which won’t be here in a 100 years if we persist in doing nothing.
Charley on the MTA says
Primarily, first last and always. I don’t even understand any other relevant “framing” of the issue.
I mean, if you’re talking about “green jobs” as the primary reason to do this then you will trivialize the issue — you might as well talk about how fighting terrorism “creates jobs” at the NSA. It’s fine to point out that addressing climate doesn’t kill the economy — particularly when the attacks are that it will — but that’s not the primary reason.
The primary reason to fight global warming is to protect yourself and your kids.
Charley on the MTA says
They’ve been going backwards *because* a Dem got elected. It’s that simple. OK, plus Citizens United, Koch $$$, etc. But don’t underestimate simple spite: We don’t believe in global warming because #$%# AL GORE, THAT’S WHY.
But even to a less-than-engaged public, denialism looks sillier and sillier all the time. I maintain that there’s nothing inherently “conservative” about climate denial: Bob Inglis is showing that. We need a lot more people like him to come out of the woodwork. Hell, Charlie Baker could do it, be credible, and distance himself from the wingnuts if he chose to do so. It would be good politics.
jconway says
But I rarely hear this from elected officials in the Democratic Party, particularly on the national stage. It’s either cast as green jobs, environmental protection, or some other niche issue when it is the issue of human survival. And if the fear of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Russians could justify nearly 50 years of Cold War defense spending, surely global warming at our own hands can justify a similar level of spending. But, thus far, we haven’t seen the call for an Apollo Project to save mankind, from this White House or from current officials our party.
It’s high time it happens. It’s why I’ve started to strongly favor the divestment campaign, grassroots actions, and keeping local as well as national figures accountable. They aren’t listening to the mainstream pressure groups like Sierra Club, and while I’ve long shared your admiration of Ed Markey on this issue, one senator can only do so much-he needs the rest of us to build an army to have his back. So while I am glad the POTUS has finally acted, it is just a foundation to build on.
Christopher says
Talk about innovation, jobs, a can-do attitude toward solving this problem. I think too often the message comes across as what we have to sacrifice, which is politically a losing argument.
jconway says
Right now the message is “sacrifice your economic livelihood and personal comfort to save the polar bears” which is a sure fire loser. And green jobs went down the toilet marked ‘Solyndra’ since Americans now don’t want to subsidize green energy. But, in WWII FDR did ask America to make a personal sacrifice-and this included not only paying significantly higher prices for gas but even rationing gas. And the reason they tolerated these sacrifices is because they knew if the drove alone they drove with Hitler.
The Tea Party is wrong to fear monger since they fear monger about issues that don’t actually matter to the future of America. But I totally think it’s germane and proper for a political party to plainly state that the future of the species is on the line, and even in America we have already lost more people to climate change than to 9/11.
NASA wasn’t just about the optimism of conquering space, it was coupled with fear of the Soviets using space as a base to attack America. Let’s have an Apollo Project/WWII level of commitment, and you can’t get that with love alone-you need an element of fear as well. And this is the issue where the panic is justified by the facts and 99.9% of scientists. But sure, emphasize that this will require short term sacrifices for long term gains. A post-carbon future is one where we actually pay less for gas, less for home insurance, less for public health issues, and have access to bigger and better crop yields and are safe from danger. Economic as well as national security should be emphasized, with a touch of Kennedy era optimism about national greatness. If any nation has a responsbility to solve climate change, it is America, and if any nation has the opportunity to solve it, it is still America.
Charley on the MTA says
Look, “framing” issues and all that is terribly clever, but dammit you’ve got to be honest. And any talk about GW that doesn’t say that we’re in very serious trouble is just not honest. And then people can tell, and they wonder what you’re really up to.
The positivity comes from the idea that *yes we can* really do a lot better, that wind and solar are genuinely viable in a way that perhaps they weren’t before, and that it’s not going to kill the economy.
But if you want someone to move off of the train tracks, you’ve gotta yell “THERE’S A TRAIN COMING!!” (Figuratively. And compassionately.)
Christopher says
Your second paragraph has it especially right, but keep the focus there. For example tell people we CAN invest in mass transit and encourage greener cars rather than that they shouldn’t drive as much and we’re going to raise taxes on fuel while we’re at it.
ykozlov says
“Greener” i.e. more efficient cars are a marginal improvement to pollution and consumption of natural resources. For the drastic reductions we need, we need cultural change. That does mean telling people they shouldn’t drive as much (though perhaps in a more subtle, more persuasive way), along with creating incentives such as high consumer gas prices, bike lanes, and public transportation people would actually want to and be able to use.
Christopher says
…if we can get to entirely clean-fueled cars or even MPG much higher than currently to make a significant dent. I can’t accept higher gas prices until AFTER other things are in place. I’m sorry, but that is just too great a portion of my cost of living on paycheck to paycheck income.
jconway says
But I have been arguing we need to be more alarmist over global warming and bring the message home that it’s a greater threat than terrorism. You may have been replying to Christopher’s request to keep it positive, but we can do both. We can save the planet and save money/innovate at the same time. But the threat is very real, and I totally agree we need to be more honest and candid about it. Particularly elected officials and representatives in the media.
roarkarchitect says
I don’t believe the GSP figures are inflation adjusted. Just saying……….
historian says
We will need to do a lot more, but this is a key step. As for the facts, it’s time to make clear to those pundits and politicians who deny reality that they can no longer hope to be taken seriously.
stomv says
1. It’s 30% reduction since 2005. Since pre-frack. In fact, in a post-fracking world, it’s closer to a 15% reduction — we got the first half from economic switching from coal to gas.
2. We’re going to get another few percent “for free” due to compliance with MATS, CASPR, regional haze, 316(b), effluent, and CCR. Those are all regulations that govern things other-than-carbon, and for some (old and/or small) coal plants, it’s cheaper to retire than to retrofit. Since we’re not building any new coal plants, any time a coal plant gets retired it’s energy is replaced with gas, and that means reduced carbon emissions.
3. Massachusetts certainly deserves credit for energy efficiency programs, ranging from subsidies to building codes to 100 things in between. However, the bulk of the CO2 reduction has been from reducing consumption of coal and oil and replacing it with natural gas.
Bottom line: the 30% includes a head start, and much of it is because of low gas prices induced by fracking. If we’re to get to that goal (and surpass it!) we’ve got to work harder at energy efficiency nationwide and build far, far more renewable generation, ranging from 5 kW rooftop PV to 500,000 kW offshore wind projects.