Climate 411

Last week, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza asked for thoughts on what Obama’s first legislative priority should be upon taking office. I submitted this comment:

President-elect Barack Obama will face a series of challenges that rival any of his modern predecessors — a damaged economy, a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, aging and inefficient U.S. infrastructure, and a deteriorating environment.

Each individually would warrant the immediate attention of the White House. But the President-elect has an historic opportunity to work with Congress on a plan to address them all. That plan should start with a cap on global warming pollution.

With that cap, we can help revitalize the economy by instantly creating new markets and new customers for U.S. manufacturers in the supply chain for clean energy technologies – think wind turbines and all of the cement and steel that go into them. We can stem the flow of petrodollars overseas, by as much as $500 billion over the next two decades by MIT estimates. And we can generate new revenue for investment in America by auctioning emissions permits – all while fighting climate change.

It’s the energy policy America needs now. President-elect Obama should begin working with Congress early in his administration to enact a cap and restore U.S. leadership in the global climate change debate.

This morning, Cilizza posted a follow-up with excerpts from "the most interesting/provocative thoughts" he received, and I was happy to see my suggestion among them: a cap on global warming pollution.

This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

The debate goes on about EDF’s competition to visually explain how a carbon cap will solve our addiction to oil. Joe Romm critiqued the competition as “bizarre” since it asked people to “explain something that isn’t true.” I responded by saying that MIT’s climate model supports us. This prompted another response from Romm titled “EDF’s and MIT’s magical thinking on carbon caps and oil.”

As I mentioned in my previous post about this thread, the discussion was not yet over. I posted my latest response on Gristmill and Environmental Economics.

The gist? History helps illustrate why, if anything, we are underestimating likely technological progress.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.

A few weeks ago we posted about our video design competition – $10,000 to the winner  – for depicting how a cap on greenhouse gases can solve our addiction to oil. Joe Romm on Climate Progress had a problem with this – said we were asking the impossible since a cap wouldn’t do this.

I responded to Romm’s objection on the Environmental Economics blog with a post titled “Bizarre”? No. Tough? Yes. But that wasn’t the end of it. Romm fired back, accusing EDF of “magical thinking”. Our exchange is also cross-posted on Grist (Romm’s first post, my response, Romm’s answer).

Stay tuned – I’ll be posting a response to Romm’s second post this week.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Our resident geographer, Peter Black, has a new blog called Climate Atlas where he posts maps to visualize many aspects of climate change. Here’s a sampling of his recent posts:

• Worldwide climate anomalies in 2007
• U.S. renewable energy resources
• Regional climate initiatives
• New York metro area with a 10-foot sea-level rise

Check it out and tell us what you think!

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Time magazine’s cover story in their latest issue is "How to Win the War on Global Warming". It starts this way:

Americans don’t like to lose wars – which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.

We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we’re fighting at all—and by most accounts, we’re not—we’re fighting on the wrong side.

Take a look and tell us what you think!

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Carrots and Sticks – Marc Gunther posted a nuanced discussion of how organizations like NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund work with corporations. Rather than endorse or disparage the corporation as a whole, the focus is on the actions the corporation takes. Environmentally responsible actions are praised – even from a corporation that’s doing other things that aren’t so good. It’s an effective way to motivate change.

New Jobs and Affordable Energy – The Center for American Progress published a detailed and well-documented analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and how it would affect the economy. They say, "The bill would make significant reductions in the carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming as well as turbo charge investments in clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, and geothermal. … The boost for renewable energy would create thousands of new jobs in the clean energy industry."