On Sunday evening I proved myself to be even less cool than my tween daughter thinks. Not quite having the energy to drive all the way to Stonehill College, and also not wanting to add to my carbon footprint by driving there alone (no one wanted to join me!), I sat down at my laptop to watch the climate debate. Steve Kornacki looked far more relaxed than usual (I’m used to seeing him at the “big board” on election nights, with a distinctly panicked look, as he tries to keep up with everything in real time), and I was eager to hear what both Senator Markey and Ms. Shannon Liss-Riordan were going to say. All in all, I found it interesting and informative, and learned more about both of their perspectives. Not surprisingly there seemed to be a lot similarity between them on the majority of issues – climate crisis is real and human made, their voting on the issue would be similar if elected, improved mass transit (especially east-west across the state) would help tremendously, fracking must end, and so on. After some prompting and clarification from Steve Kornacki, Senator Markey also ultimately seemed to concede that ending the filibuster may be needed in the future. In other venues, Congressman Joe Kennedy (for whom I volunteer) has expressed similar views on these topics (though he and Ms. Liss-Riordan are more similar on the filibuster issue than is Senator Markey).
There were also a few differences on stage. Senator Markey highlighted his long history of hard work on climate change, and his co-leadership of the Green New Deal, for which I am very grateful and have much respect. Ms. Liss-Riordan spoke repeatedly of carbon taxing and other ways to pay for the changes needed to create a green energy future, and I didn’t hear much (any?) of that from Senator Markey. Ms. Liss-Riordan was critical of Senator Markey’s acceptance of major donations from Black Rock Investments, and seemed to allude to Senator Markey’s to-be-determined acceptance of the People’s Pledge.
But throughout the hour, I couldn’t shake two nagging questions – “How?” and “Why?” How are we actually going to achieve (and pay for) all these critical changes in legislation, energy consumption, and clean energy innovation? And why would enormous industries that survive on fossil fuels (e.g., the automotive industry, fossil fuel companies themselves, and so on), not to mention Republicans, go along with all of this? And though I desperately want to believe in the energy future that Senator Markey described, I was not convinced. He spoke in inspiring tones about a “revolution.” (He used the word so many times, Ms. Liss-Riordan seemed to reference it as “lofty language” at one point.) But I didn’t once hear him use the words “strategy” or “plan.” He painted a picture so optimistic that it became easy to believe that Democrats would have a majority of 60+ votes in the Senate after the 2020 election, and that all we (the 2020 Democrats in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress) would have to do is “just lift the goals” for required fuel efficiency in cars, “just mandate” changes, “just…take on the issue [of recycling and plastics]”. That “all we have to do is change the policies” with regard to fracking, that “the [green energy] revolution will begin quickly once we [the Democrats] take over,” and that “the auto industry will just have to adapt to that reality [of electric cars and pollution reduced “almost to nothing”]. Senator Markey seemed undaunted by the fact that none of these changes “just” happened when Democrats actually did most recently have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. He seemed to brush this away by saying that the “political climate has changed.”
I agree with Senator Markey on many issues, including the fact that the climate crisis is urgent and that the political climate around it has changed. But I don’t see how or why the critical changes we need to make are “just” going to happen. Even Senator Markey acknowledged that the Green New Deal “does not give prescriptions for how to get there.” And none of this even takes into account serious consideration of how to approach any of these necessary changes if Democrats don’t take control of the Senate next year. We need plans and strategies for how to get there (and how to pay for it), and those plans need to include contingencies for the fairly likely (albeit horrifying) event that Mitch McConnell will still lead the Senate in 2020. So, although I desperately – desperately! – want to believe in the energy future that Senator Markey describes, I just don’t.
doubleman says
If Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader, there is ZERO chance of a climate bill going through. The only recourse is executive action. Not sure why you’d put the expectation of executive action on Markey.
How we get a good climate bill or group of bills through is doing politics and winning seats and exerting influence. We’re also going to have to get rid of the filibuster.
And how do we pay for it? Like everything else, Congress appropriates and the money gets spent. We have to stop literally killing ourselves with the self-defeating “how do we pay for it?” hand-wringing.
How’d we pay for the War on Terror? We can do the same with the true existential war we are facing.
Also, it would have been nice to hear about Joe Kennedy’s plans and strategies for climate action . . . but, you know . . .
BKay says
My point was not that it is Senator Markey’s responsibility to single-handedly get a climate bill passed (and clearly an executive order is not at his disposal). Rather, I’d like to hear from all Democratic Senators (and all MA Senate Dem primary candidates) about strategies for moving our priorities forward in the face of various scenarios, including Dems taking the Senate but not having 60 votes, Dems not taking the Senate but McConnell (miraculously!) being defeated in KY, Dems not taking the Senate and having McConnell at the top, etc. This is particularly important for issues that are overwhelmingly supported by Americans (e.g., acting on the climate crisis, adopting basic gun safety measures). As an example, I’m thrilled that all of the Senate primary candidates are finally on board for getting rid of the filibuster. I’m also interested to hear from all of them about other structural changes that could be implemented (so far Congressman Kennedy has most broadly outlined these).
I also think it’s important to consider and articulate how we can work with at least some Republicans on at least some of these issues, by looking at the full range of their stakeholders (i.e., not just constituents, but responsible businesses, and others). Some of those stakeholders care about some of these things. If we can’t get congressional Republicans to actually care about them, maybe we can leverage things they do care about (e.g., keeping businesses in their districts/states happy) to get some of the things that the vast majority of Americans want. I’ve heard others talk about these kinds of strategies in a variety of areas (e.g., Congressman Kennedy, Speaker Pelosi, and others), and I’d like to hear that kind of thinking from more members of Congress.
As for how to pay for it, there is no hand-wringing here. There is an undeniable reality that this will cost money, as do all the other examples you mentioned, and we need ideas about how to pay for it. Any of us who have kids (or were once kids) know that if you ask for something big without any thought to cost or payment, you’re going to get a lot less traction than if you ask for something big with some initial ideas on how to generate some of the resources needed for it. While I think about these important questions, I’m also working to get Democrats elected in key states (via voter registration work in PA, FL, and ME), donating money to candidates and groups working on the issues we care about, and planning to go to KY personally to knock on doors for Amy McGrath (I have family there, so I have an easy place to stay, and people to drag with me). Asking these questions doesn’t mean you have to be paralyzed while you wait for some thoughtful answers. But I do want some thoughtful answers.
On the subject of Congressman Kennedy’s views on the climate crisis, he talks about it routinely in DC, in various news outlets, on twitter and facebook, and during at least 10 events every week throughout the Commonwealth. If you aren’t aware of his views, I have to wonder if you’ve looked at any of those sources. I also have to believe that none of us would rely on one small forum/debate that was (very unfortunately) not televised, and (even more unfortunately) didn’t fill the auditorium in which it was held, to try and understand any candidate’s views on any critical issue. If you’re genuinely interested in learning about Congressman Kennedy’s views on climate, there was a quick primer on Boston.com just yesterday: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/11/11/joe-kennedy-climate-change.
Charley on the MTA says
Either we have a revolution of the kind Markey describes, or we have no future whatsoever.
That’s not on Markey. That’s on the rest of us to make it happen. We don’t need to “believe”. We just need to get out and push.
Christopher says
Is it just me or have you joined the extinction is imminent caucus regarding climate? Sometimes I think all the hyperventilating about this issue will itself raise global temperatures a couple of degrees:)
SomervilleTom says
@the extinction is imminent caucus:
Are you not paying attention? How much of California has to burn before you admit that the threat is here and now? How many more category 5 hurricanes in a single season does it take? How much of the Greenland ice cap has to melt to get your attention?
We got the wake-up call about climate change a decade ago — and we slept through it.
Christopher says
I know there is a lot more that needs to be done, and frankly a lot more that should have been done going back to at least the 1980s. Yes, there are threats to the environment that make me feel like we are playing whack-a-mole, but what I’m not on board with is the sense I get from some that every other issue must be put on hold because either our generation or our children’s will be the ones who die on account of extinction.
jconway says
Or the one size fits all approach to climate mitigation. There’s a lot we can do besides the stuff Markey is proposing. The market for clean energy is now cheaper than dirty energy and energy emissions are actually trending downward. I’m surprised there has not been a push to electrify all vehicles by a certain date.
Auto emissions are now outpacing energy emissions as the biggest culprit and it seems like something where government could partner with the auto industry and frame it as a choice build the cars and batteries in America and tell the Saudis, Venezuelans, and Russians to screw.
The climate crisis is the biggest collective security challenge since the Second World War. Unlike that war, this is a totally peaceful opportunity for countless technical innovations and economic reinvention. Kennedy’s rhetoric is better on selling this, while Liss Riordon seems to have the best policy incentives. Markey seems stuck in his nuclear freeze past where there is only his way to solve the problem or the highway.
Christopher says
Regarding autos as far as I can tell there is nothing other than political will stopping us from legislating much higher fuel efficiency standards.
SomervilleTom says
Even more effective is to join the rest of the first world and dramatically increase gas taxes. Such market incentives are much more effective much more immediately than higher fuel efficiency standards.
We don’t have the 10-15 years it would take for any change in fuel efficiency standards made today to have any impact at all. Higher fuel efficiency standards have no effect at all on the existing fleet.
A gas tax of $3-4/gallon has an immediate impact on driving behavior.
Christopher says
No deal! Some of us can’t afford it and I hate manipulating demand. The rest of the world also has higher fuel standards I’m pretty sure. I will still need to drive and it will cost a fortune while making just this side of minimum wage.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that we have other issues that need to be confronted.
The point remains, though, that there is a sort of Maslow hierarchy at work that we can’t avoid. When a fire, flood, blizzard, hurricane, or similar extreme weather emergency strikes, everything else is put on hold. We cancel school during a blizzard. When an extreme event like Sandy floods the subways, subway service stops.
These extreme weather events are no longer surprises that happen without warning as “acts of God”. Extreme weather events like this have been predicted for decades and are now happening. What other issues besides dealing with the fires do we think Californians are paying attention to?
We know the sea level is rising, so we delude ourselves when we talk about building major infrastructure — even new buildings — in places like the Seaport District or the Back Bay.
I have a 20 month old grandchild (my first). She has a current life expectancy of about 80 years. When you speak of “our generation or our children’s”, that has profound meaning — meaning that I’m not sure anybody who is not a parent can appreciate. My youngest daughter was born in 1996.
That means that a reasonable event horizon for “my children’s generation” is 2076 — when my youngest will turn 80. The little girl that I bounce I my knee today is likely to live until 2098 — the turn of the next century.
If you don’t think there are life-threatening issues facing us between now and 2076-2099, then you aren’t paying attention. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconvenience that you or others might suffer by being forced to give up your automobile is a MUCH lower priority for me than avoiding an untimely death of my grandchild.
The weather catastrophes are already happening. In the same way that 24 inches of overnight snow will wipe out the next day’s school or business activities — no matter how urgent or important — so too will these climate change catastrophes.
Each day, month, year, and decade that we delay makes the job exponentially more difficult (not to mention more expensive). That is the reality that I fear your “extinction caucus” comment denies.
Christopher says
80 is her life expectancy at birth to boot so assuming she makes it past the first few years her life expectancy will likely increase. (I’ve even heard it posited that the first human to live to be 150 may have already been born.) When your granddaughter’s time to pass to the next world does come I am confident that it will not be because she is going out with the final curtain call for homo sapiens.
SomervilleTom says
Your optimism is touching, and I appreciate it.
It is not shared by climatologists looking at the hard science.
Christopher says
Are you seriously suggesting our own extinction is in sight? I don’t think even the UN reports have suggested anything that drastic. I have much more confidence in the resilience of our species than that, though of course we need to get to work on this.
BKay says
Please take a look at my reply above. It wasn’t my intention to put it all on Senator Markey. And I promise you — I am out there pushing every single day. I know you are too.
gmoke says
Those Communists at the International Monetary Fund estimate that the USA subsidizes fossil foolishness by about $649 billion per year. My back of the envelope calculations estimate that the USA burns about $661 billion per year in petroleum products, natural gas, and coal. That’s $1.2 trillion per year in the USA handed over to the fossil fools.
How do you pay for an energy transition again?
Of course, once you’ve transitioned to renewable energy, you never have to pay for fossil fuels (and fools) again. What happens when the cost of fuel goes away (about 6% of the GDP by these calculations)?
I suspect within 5 years, the California grid is going to be completely restructured as modular microgrids, from household to town or institution scale, which will be able to island, operate with or without the grid. Much of this will be renewably powered with battery back-up. This will happen because California does not want to burn to ash every Autumn. Is that what Markey is calling a revolution? Probably not, but it is the reality we are facing.