The energy and enviro communities are all buzzing about today’s Washington Post op-ed by James Murdoch, the head of News Corporation’s Europe and Asia divisions, and son of its founder, Rupert Murdoch.
The op-ed, “Clean energy conservatives can embrace”, calls for a capping carbon pollution and supports market-based incentives for clean energy. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth reading.
You may have seen the new video by Annie Leonard raising questions about cap and trade. It has provoked impassioned responses by environmentalists (comments are pouring in on the post by David Roberts that Tony linked to yesterday, and here’s another from Eric de Place on Sightline).
The first and most important thing to say about the video is that we really, really, really agree with one of her central points: A cap on carbon pollution is the most important step we can take to protect our environment.
But we disagree with some other things in the video — most of all, the idea that passing the current climate bill would be a bad idea. The bill isn’t perfect, but it would be an historic and effective step forward. Here’s why:
If we don’t enact a cap soon, international negotiations will fail. Without a limit on U.S. emissions, China and India will never agree to cut their global warming pollution. That means our slow-motion, real-life disaster movie continues, and we probably shoot past the environmental tipping point scientists have warned us about. That’s why President Obama endorsed the bill and said “delay is no longer an option.”
But maybe the most direct and practical reason is that the bill which passed the House of Representatives will result in a reduction in global warming pollution of four billion metric tons per year. That’s nearly nine trillion pounds less pollution in the atmosphere by mid-century. It’s the equivalent of taking 720 million cars off the road, permanently.
Failing to pass a bill means deciding to allow those 4 billion tons of pollution to go into the atmosphere every year. Eleven million tons per day.
And if you feel that the bill should be even stronger, remember that some of the most important laws in our nation’s history — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act — started as important first steps that were strengthened over time. Unless we lay the foundation, we will never make any progress.
Lastly, the video talks about using the EPA to regulate carbon emissions instead of passing a cap and trade bill. The EPA has an important role to play, but a law passed by Congress is much better. There are lots of reasons, but consider just one: Do you really want to let the next anti-environmental President undo pollution limits through executive action?
We think there oughta be a law against that.
Many of you have already seen the video, “The Story of Cap and Trade.” David Roberts of Grist writes,
The greenosphere is all abuzz about a new video from Annie Leonard, creator of semi-famous anti-consumerism video/book The Story of Stuff.
While the video is very engagingly done and gets many things right, it unfortunately gets some important things wrong.
David addresses some of those things in his response to it:
…I think it’s the wrong argument. Activists like Leonard are just mis-identifying the barriers to effective climate action. I’ll have lots more to say on that subject soon, but for now, let’s focus on the video.
Click through to watch the video and read David’s post.
What would you like to tell the world’s leaders about global warming?
With the focus now on the Copenhagen climate conference, this is your chance to speak out. Go to our Facebook page and add your voice to our 10,000 Reasons to Support Strong Climate Action campaign. We will share these reasons with key members of Congress and with the White House.
Here are just a handful of the more than 650 reasons offered so far:
Deborah Beracha of Fort Lauderdale, Fla, wrote:
Let’s all join together. Global warming has to be taken seriously. Leaders need to stand up and limit global warming emissions and they need to do it now.
Ken Weitzman of Bloomington, IN, wrote:
As a father, I want to be able to answer two questions my children will one day ask:
1) Did you know?
Then, after I answer “yes”…2) So what did you do?
Jeff Riney of Asheville, N.C., wrote:
If anything we need to do this for our kids! I dread the day that my daughter says, “thanks for the mess you left us Dad!”
Gabe Schirm of northern Colorado wrote:
The technology, the science and the will are here now. We have the solutions. We just need our leaders to do the right thing. Not later, but now.
President Obama announced last Wednesday that he will attend the international climate talks in Copenhagen — and that in the context of an overall international agreement that includes commitments from China and other emerging economies, he is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020.
For those of you who were traveling, cooking, or turkey-shopping that night and missed the evening newscasts, here’s EDF’s president Fred Krupp talking about the announcement on NBC Nightly News.
A recent dinner guest revealed that he drives eight blocks to work each day, rain or shine. That’s eight short blocks. The guy is a healthy 20-something. Some days it takes him more time to drive than it would take him to walk.
How can we avoid the meter and be greener?
So why does he drive no matter what? He loves free parking.
See, at work his employer pays for his parking. If he kept his car at home during the day, he’d have to pay $100 a month to park in the lot linked to his apartment, or even more to park at another lot. Instead, every evening he drives back home, parks near his apartment complex after city street parking restrictions have expired, and wakes up the next morning to drive eight blocks to park for free at work.
Except that it isn’t really free. The rest of us pick up part of the costs of his parking habit–costs like health–threatening air pollution, earth-damaging greenhouse gas emissions, and road wear and tear.
That’s just a short list of parking costs. UCLA Professor Don Shoup has brilliantly established that parking costs everyone and that parking costs are hidden in nearly everything, from land values to groceries. He has also established that there are smart solutions, and most revolve around revealing the real costs of parking and pricing parking so as not to make everyone else pay for one driver’s decision to drive and park.
One of those solutions is parking cash-out. The idea is that an employer who wants to provide a perk to employees would provide a choice, instead of giving everyone a parking space. The choice would be between the parking spot or the cash. Employees could then use the cash to leave the car at home and spend the money on transit, a new bike helmet, or really comfortable walking shoes. The cash-out is counted as income, but there are some federal tax deductions for cash-out spent on transit or vanpools, and in some cases certain state tax deductions, too.
Parking cash-out programs work where they’re offered. Statistics range, depending on the location’s alternate transportation options, from a few percent to nearly 40 percent of employees who opt for the cash when it’s offered. As a result, the employer gets happier employees and reduces the number of parking spaces needed in the lease. Everyone gets a bit cleaner air and less traffic.
Cash-out isn’t offered as much as common sense would suggest this win-win might be. In the rare case where cash-out is required, it hasn’t always been enforced. Earlier this year, Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council co-sponsored successful legislation in California that gave certain local governments the option of enforcing the state’s parking cash-out law.
There’s no need to wait for a law to come to your community. Many employers around the country have voluntarily initiated their own parking cash-out programs. If yours hasn’t, ask about it.
Cash-out programs move us all closer to one important goal: giving commuters more choice even as they reduce their environmental impact.
