ccl press file oct. 2011 - march 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 30, 2012

It was hot out – and it’s our fault Re The hottest March day ever recorded in the city (March 23)

This brief front-page article reported the

bare fact summarized in its title, but had no

room for context or comment. Global

warming due to man-made emissions of

greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is a

real threat and it has begun.

Scientists agree on this. A study of

scientific articles on global climate change

from 1993 to 2003 found all 928 supported

the consensus view that it was caused by

human activities. Why, then, have we heard

or read that “the science is not settled?”

First, journalists may seek “balance” and

find someone to speak against the

mainstream view even if that spokesperson is

not well-qualified. Second, there have been

very effective PR campaigns, funded by fossil

fuel companies, sowing doubts about climate

change science.

At the Vancouver meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science

last month, a panel was convened entitled

“Unmuzzling Canadian Scientists: How to

Reopen the Discourse.” Canadian government

scientists have been directed not to talk about

their work to the media. Journalists have to

submit their questions for review to a media

relations office and might still be denied.

So perhaps it’s not surprising that David

Phillips, senior climatologist at Environment

Canada, offered no comment on the 27 C (80

F) high in Hamilton beyond the exclamation:

“That is incredible.”

Jeremy Woodley

Dundas


Economic expansion over environmental costs Re: "It ain't feasible being green" -- March 20.

Ezra Levant is a zealot of that old-time

religion of big oil and climate change denial.

He worships at the altar of economic

expansion regardless of environmental cost

and bows to the high priests of oil profits,

cheap energy and excessive consumption of

all that is available.

As he says, the point of any zealot is to

have an external enemy to blame.

Levant's Satan is Dalton McGuinty and, by

association, all climate scientists and all

Ontarians who understand the science of

human-caused global warming. Support of

non-fossil energy sources is one of the deadly

sins in his eyes.

Levant's is certainly a perverse faith, not a

true religion, a superstition, properties he

imagines for the knowledge that is the

foundation for all green energy programs.

He attacks that knowledge with some

pseudo-scientific innuendo and some gross

misrepresentations of Ontario's programs.

Levant's false religion is a superstition that is

perverse to all humans except his idols.

It denies the rights of the poor and future

generations, while pretending to be their

defence.

Here's hoping that Levant's religion will

not seduce any new converts, and that his

fellow-travellers will find the truth and defect

en masse.

Let us not be afraid to invest a little of

what we don't need for the sake of our

descendants.

Len Wiseman,

Lively

OPED, MARCH 29, 2012

p

Jim F. Chamberlain: I agree that alarmism is out of place in every age. ... But the physics are well-known, and

the dots are easily connected.

Energy Transition: Reasonable Approaches

Needed By JIM F. CHAMBERLAIN

A recent book by Sen. James Inhofe tries to debunk concern about climate change by casting aspersions on everyone from the United Nations to George W. Bush. Unfortunately, he refutes climate alarmism with his own alarmism and conspiracy

theories - labeling a cap-and-trade proposal as the "largest tax increase in American history," calling the EPA a "job-destroying agency" and implying that the United Nations wants to take over the world.

The book uses a congressional study to claim that America's combined energy resources are the largest on Earth, but it fails to mention that even if all recoverable oil in United States were refined, that amount represents only a 24-year supply at the current rate of consumption. (Most of our energy reserves are in coal.) It also notes that Oklahoma's unemployment rate is lower than the national average but fails to point out that government, not energy, is the largest employer.

I agree that alarmism is out of place in every age. The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, as is Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear." Most Americans recognize fiction for what it is. But the physics are well-known, and the dots are easily connected.

A CO2 molecule is very efficient at trapping heat; our atmosphere depends on it. Increased oil/coal consumption results in increased CO2 release that has to go somewhere - pooled in the atmosphere, taken up by plants or acidifying the ocean.

Americans have now spent years of just observing the data themselves - daffodils blooming earlier in the spring, trees changing color later in the fall, glaciers retreating at Glacier National Park, the southern pine beetle expanding its territory of destruction in winters no longer cold enough to freeze them out.

Texas will need to plan for many more years of drought, partly due to increased evaporation. Sea levels have risen since 1900 by about eight inches. These things are easy to measure simply by reading a gauge or marking the calendar, with no commentary or innuendo.

Americans deserve sound, reasonable energy policies. A newly introduced measure in Congress - The Save Our Climate Act of 2011 (House Resolution 3242) - would apply a fee on carbon-based fuels, return most of

the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, and use the remaining portion for deficit reduction.

The fee, placed on carbon at the point of entry into the economy, begins at a rate of $10 per ton in the first year and increases by $10 per ton each year. Every dollar that is collected, over the first $10 per ton, is awarded back to the public in an annual dividend check. The predictable price on carbon gives businesses a needed level of certainty and sends a clear price signal to shift investments, and thus new job creation, away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The benefits to the nation are manifold: Renewable energy can compete in the marketplace, national security is enhanced with less reliance on imported oil, the U.S. has a chance to become a world leader in new-generation energy and the atmosphere is spared from more greenhouse gases.

The benefits to the state of Oklahoma are also net positive, as this legislation favors the usage of our immense natural resources of wind, solar power and natural gas, the last of these being less carbon-intensive than either coal (for electricity) or oil (for transportation).

God created Earth's atmosphere, formed (over eons) in just the right balance for human and non-human species and saw that "it was good." But we cannot presume upon his kindness without our own proper stewardship. Psalm 19 prays: "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!" and St. Paul cautions that "we must not put the Lord to the test" (1 Corinthians, 10).

Carbon fee-and-dividend will both protect our planet's atmosphere and make the U.S. a world leader in renewable energy innovation. Jim F. Chamberlain is a Catholic priest and

environmental scientist who lives and

works in Norman.


Enjoy weather but cut emissions We’re nearing the end of the warmest

March in Chicago history, on the heels of one

of the warmest winters ever.

Just a nice little gift from Mother Nature?

Maybe not, according to a new report in the

journal Nature, which says that “extreme

weather events over the past decade have

increased and were ‘very likely’ caused by

manmade global warming.” It goes on to say,

“Recent years have seen an exceptionally

large number of record-breaking and

destructive heat waves in many parts of the

world and research suggests that many or

even most of these would not have happened

without global warming.”

That’s not good, considering that our

greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to

pour out at the rate of 200 tons per second.

Pleasantly warm weather in March may be

a harbinger of less pleasant things to come.

It’s time to force our elected officials to take

action to curtail fossil fuel emissions.

Ideological objections can’t change the laws

of physics.

Rick Knight

Brookfield

OP-ED, MARCH 26, 2012

Oil and other carbon-based fuels are not the

answer to energy woes By Barbara Eckstein

I always cringe when, in the movie “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray steps in the same puddle over and over as he relives the same day. I see myself rushing to the next thing and the next, oblivious to what’s right under my feet, slow to learn that the same behavior — here’s a surprise! — produces the same messy results.

Recently, I received an email from Mark Reynolds, executive director of the bipartisan - nonpartisan group called Citizens’ Climate Lobby. I’m a member of CCL. In Reynolds’s message, the recurring “Groundhog Day” scenario is America awakening to another spike in the cost of oil and climbing gas prices.

What to do? Step in the same puddle over and over and curse our fate?

Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, America has vowed to foster energy independence. Yet it’s 2012, we’re still at the mercy of petroleum merchants, and the price of gas is heading up and over $4.

We want to believe that more drilling in U.S. territory and the Keystone XL Pipeline will solve our problem at the pump. It seems like it should. But it doesn’t solve either our short-term or long-term need for energy and affordable transportation because the price of oil is determined on a global market and sold to the highest bidder.

And there are more bidders now than there were in the 1970s. Since April 2009, the number of oil rigs operating on U.S. lands and waters has quadrupled and U.S. dependence

on foreign oil has fallen from 65 to 45 percent in 2011. Still the price of gasoline goes up because of global demand and reduced production in oil-rich countries. The United States consumes 20 percent of the world’s oil but only holds 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Energy independence for the U.S. can’t mean oil independence and it can’t mean charging ahead in the same old ways.

OK, so what about the Canadian oil? If we built that Keystone XL Pipeline wouldn’t we have our own oil, at least North American oil?

You’d think so. But no. The opposite is true.

The oil produced in Alberta’s tar sands is currently landlocked, producing a surplus for Midwest refineries in the U.S. that has held down the price. If the Keystone XL Pipeline is built and that Canadian oil is piped down to the Gulf of Mexico, it enters the global market and goes to the highest bidder.

The drop in Midwest supplies, says analysts, will increase the price at the pump by another 10-20 cents per gallon.

So, how do we wake up and, like Bill Murray, look at the big mud puddle under our feet, and walk around it?

The only way to protect our economy and our children’s future from the volatility of the oil market and the mess carbon extraction and use makes of our world is to reduce our demand. And the only way to reduce our demand is first to recognize that we can’t rush from one thing to another oblivious to the mess right under our feet.

In the past, higher gas prices have proven a powerful incentive to reduce fuel consumption. And those who could afford new vehicles bought smaller more efficient ones. But we have relapsed when the price of oil has gone down, buying inefficient vehicles again.

The changing price at the pump has not gotten us out of our “Groundhog Day” scenario.

So CCL proposes that we set a steady price on carbon and carbon pollution that reflects the real cost to all concerned. Pricing carbon as a way to stabilize our personal finances and national economy may seem counter-

intuitive, but not if this controlled increase in fuel costs, a carbon fee, is re-tuned to the public.

Legislation to provide the incentive for a transition away from fossil fuels has been introduced in the U.S. House as the Save Our Climate Act HR 3242. It places a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels — oil, coal and gas — and returns most of the revenue to all Americans in equal shares. Have a look.

See what you think. And while you’re thinking, maybe you could literally walk around some mud puddles instead of driving through them.

Barbara Eckstein is a member of Iowa City Climate Advocates that meets the first Tuesday of

every month at 7 p.m. in Trinity Episcopal Church.


Wind support Congratulations to U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of

Kansas for requesting an extension of the

wind energy production tax credit that

expires at the end of 2012. In a late February

letter sent to Senate majority and minority

leaders, he and 11 colleagues appealed for a

stable tax environment in which the wind

industry can operate and develop.

I personally believe we must move toward

renewable energy sources. I honestly feel a

fee on carbon-based fuels is the quickest

way to do so, but with private interests

dominating legislative action on carbon fuels,

it is probably going to take baby steps. Until

we, the public, demand action on carbon, I

think we have to let wind and solar incubate

in the marketplace.

This bipartisan effort lead by Moran, a

Republican, and Mark Udall, a Colorado

Democrat, is encouraging. In their letter they

suggest that failure to extend the production

tax credit could destabilize the industry

before it can demonstrate cost

competitiveness. With 400 wind turbine

manufacturing facilities in the U.S., tens of

thousands of jobs are on the line. Stability

will set a path for the wind industry to move

toward a market-based system.

Tony Schmidt

Lawrence


Global demand affects gas prices in the U.S. Competition is the solution

Prices at the pump will keep rising,

because of global demand, and also because

we are getting oil from more difficult places

— deep water, shale and sand — and there is

less and less of it. [“Global demand affects gas

prices,” Business, March 23.]

Competition is the solution. Electric

battery and solar and wind power industries

are expanding, and the cost of their products

is steadily dropping. Electricity from solar

and wind is already cheaper than

conventional electricity in many places.

A tax on oil, even if revenue is returned

directly to consumers, would level the playing

field, help alternatives industries compete

against the mature and well-subsidized oil

industry and put us on the path to affordable

energy.

Louise Stonington

Seattle


Re: Our mercurial spring, Editorial, March 23

Contrary to your editorial, those worried

about global warming, which includes 95 per

cent of the world's climate scientists, have

taken no comfort from the cold winter in

eastern Europe. For example, Julia Sligo, chief

scientist at the U.K. government's weather

office, says that the reduction in Arctic Sea ice

has led to the recent colder, drier weather in

Europe, and this could exacerbate future

water shortages. Unbridled carbon emissions

will only make this worse. We need to put a

price on carbon and accelerate our

investment in non-carbon energy sources

before we pass the tipping point. A latte on a

Toronto patio in March has already come at a

high price for the planet.

Doug Pritchard

Toronto


Newton: Focus energy policy on carbon In his March 16 column, “Key stone

pipeline was a missed opportunity ,” Sen.

Scott Brown never once mentions climate

change.

This despite the fact that the International

Energy Agency warns that five more y ears of

business as usual on energy guarantees that

global warming will exceed the level deemed

safe by scientists.

We need to take immediate action to halt

the ever-increasing concentration of CO2 in

the atmosphere. Putting a gradually

increasing fee on the carbon in fossil fuels

would guarantee increasing prices for coal, oil

and gas. Returning 100 percent of proceeds in

equal amounts to households would shield

consumers from rising energy costs.

Businesses would get the energy -cost

certainty they have been asking for and

massive private investment in conservation

and alternative energy would result,

providing a chance at stabilizing the climate

before it spins out of control.

In short, a carbon fee and dividend is a no-

brainer.

GARY RUCINSKI

Newton

The writer is the founder of the Boston

Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby


The dark side of global warming Re: Warming: what's not to like? Letter,

March 9

Mankind adapted fairly well to the

extinction of dinosaurs because our species

came on the scene millions of years after their

extinction. If only Claude Gannon consulted

with the science. If he did, he would learn that

while a warmer climate certainly seems like a

blessing, it will actually cause havoc in our

biosphere. We are already starting to see an

increase in extreme weather events: floods,

tornadoes, hurricanes, which compromise

lives and cost millions. Climate change is

affecting agriculture, which depends on a

stable climate, forestry and fishing. We can

expect coastal flooding — the list goes on. It’s

happening now, and will only get worse.

What kind of world are we handing over to

our kids?

Think climate change isn’t personal? Think

again.

Lauren Bates

Toronto


Need civil discussion on climate Amid the questionable reasoning and

unhelpful sarcasm in Charles Krauthammer's

commentary "Here's seaweed in your tank"

(Monday), it is disturbing to find not even a

passing reference to the consequences of our

fossil-fuel consumption. I don't know whether

Krauthammer thinks he knows better than

the overwhelming majority of the world's

climate scientists or whether he thinks we

need not be concerned about the world we

leave our descendants.

If conservatives showed any interest in

conserving the only ecosystem we have

evolved to inhabit, or, if you prefer, that God

created for us, then perhaps we could have

the kind of civil discussion needed to make

the hard decisions. We need to find ways to

consume less fossil fuel, not more. This is

physics, not ideology. The only effective

solution for the near term will be some form

of carbon tax.

Alan Windle

Philadelphia

s


Drilling for oil is not in our national interest In the past weeks, I've read the paper to

follow the General Assembly's attempts to

restrict access to abortion. I appreciate your

coverage on this important topic. But, I read

and reread in disbelief your editorial, "Politics

and Gasoline, Promises, Promises," in which

you endorse increasing U.S. oil production.

Drilling for oil makes no sense

economically or environmentally. We need to

move into clean, renewable energy and leave

the fossil fuel era behind us. Everyone agrees

that to disentangle ourselves from wars in the

Middle East, we need to stop importing oil

from the Middle East. But drilling for oil here

is not the answer. Oil in North America and

off-shore is not easy to extract. We put

ourselves at huge environmental risks for a

short term solution. The oil will run out. It is

neither a viable nor responsible option. The

real solution is a clean energy economy.

President Obama knows this. This is why he

has not and will not approve the Keystone XL

pipeline. It is not in our national interest.

As a new reader, I am thankful for the

forum you offer Richmond. I look forward to

reading your coverage of the presidential

election this fall.

Christy Escher.

Richmond.


Concerned about climate change Note: The following is reprinted from a speech given by the author at a “Night with the

candidates” event held by the York Daily Record on March 12th at York College of

Pennsylvania.

I am a volunteer with the York chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby and I live in Conewago Township. Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight and for being here.

My biggest concern is climate change. We’ll hear a lot of different concerns tonight but without a stabile climate to live in, these other issues won’t matter much.

We can see the effects of climate change on a daily basis. The scientific community has been warning policy makers for decades [about] the implications of dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Now we can see these dire predictions played out on the evening news. From “winter” tornadoes ripping across the Midwest to extreme drought plaguing farmers and ranchers in Texas, scientists have warned us of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events we can expect to see in a warming world. [The year] 2011 saw a record number of these extreme weather disasters including record flooding in many areas of Pennsylvania. Damages from the disasters cost the U.S. economy over $55 billion dollars.

Scientists have warned us of tipping points. Passing these gives us little hope of stabilizing our climate. They warn we are

rapidly approaching the point of no return. Change seems to be happening faster than the science can keep up with, [with] NASA’s James Hansen saying "Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth."

But with the entire world experiencing change on a daily basis, Washington continues with business as usual. I’m here tonight to hear how each of you plans to address this critical situation.

I don’t want to hear about hoaxes or scientists involved in conspiracy theories. I’d like to hear your thoughts on how you might plan on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, because the reality of the situation is this: there are record droughts and flooding worldwide, the Arctic permafrost is melting, sea levels are rising, coral reefs are dying off from warming oceans, the Arctic is expected to be ice free in just a few years, land-based ice is melting at a rate of 500 billion tons a year, and global temperatures are rising.

We have a responsibility to our young people and to future generations to fix this problem we have created. Thank you. Jon Clark

Conewago Township

OPED, March 17, 2012

Orrin Hatch, fossilized By David Folland

When I read Sen. Orrin Hatch’s op-ed (“Boost U.S. oil production,” Opinion, March 4), it evoked the picture of a man speeding down the freeway with head turned backwards, checking to be sure no one was coming up from behind.

Indeed, looking to the past, it would appear that expanding oil exploration, as Hatch asserted, would be the best way to lower gas prices. However, ahead of us lies a serious pileup, and we are going to join the crash if we don’t turn our heads and look forward. That accident is climate change from the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses we are putting into the atmosphere when we burn gasoline, coal and natural gas.

If we had listened to the traffic reports we would have realized that we are approaching a horrible pileup. About 150 years ago it was determined that carbon dioxide has the ability to trap heat. It’s like a blanket over the earth, holding in the warming radiation from the sun. NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen published a report 31 years ago predicting that Earth would warm and the climate would change if we continued to burn fossil fuels, causing extremes of both drought and precipitation.

While scientists investigate the complexities of the warming planet, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the climate has changed. We shouldn’t be surprised by the driest December on record in Salt Lake City in 2011; the wettest spring on record before that; this mild winter in Utah, unlike

any in recent memory; and millions of acres of Western forests dying because it doesn’t get cold enough in the winter to limit pine beetle growth.

Why would Hatch and others in Congress cling on to the notion that we must continue to support fossil fuels despite their damaging effects to the future of the Earth? One answer might lie in the tremendous influence of the fossil fuel industry. They have spent enormous sums on lobbyists and direct payments to members of Congress.

When the Senate voted on whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, the measure was defeated by four votes. Senators voting for the pipeline received $27.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, roughly three times that of the senators who voted against it. Hatch, who voted for the pipeline, has received $414,800 from fossil fuel companies since 1999.

One of the most disturbing aspects of continuing to subsidize and support fossil fuels is that it is becoming clear we have the ability to transition to sustainable fuels. In his recent book Reininventing Fire, Amory Lovins meticulously outlines how this transition can occur. It would create new jobs in the green economy while achieving energy independence and enhancing national security. Lovins estimates the transition away from fossil fuels by 2050 will cost $5 trillion less than continuing to use them, while growing the economy by 150 percent.

How can we counter the enormous influence of the fossil fuel industry? Unless ordinary citizens stand up and demand an energy policy that moves us away from fossil fuels, the status quo will prevail. Currently there is a bill in Congress, the Save Our Climate Act, which would put a fee on carbon and return most of the proceeds to the American people.

We need to ask our elected officials and our candidates to support this legislation. We

must find out how much money they receive from the fossil fuel industry. If we do, we may be able to stop speeding blindly down the highway and avoid the otherwise inevitable crash. David Folland is a retired Sandy

pediatrician concerned about the climate

outlook of the children he has cared for,

and of future generations. He volunteers

for Citizens Climate Lobby.


Opinion: Faith Communities Care for the

Planet

Photo courtesy of the Christ Congregation Church, Princeton

Solar panels adorn the roof of a pretty

Christ Congregation Church on Princeton’s

Walnut Lane.

In choosing to install them, the

congregation weighed the costs, savings,

installer qualifications and the necessary

sacrifice of a beloved oak tree to gain the

needed sunlight on the roof. But foremost in

their decision were its members’ religious

values, which are tied to their awareness of

today’s rapidly changing climate.

The congregation is concerned about

global warming and understands its causes.

“The energy we use in central New Jersey

is derived from burning coal, a fossil fuel that

... pumps greenhouse gases, especially carbon

dioxide, into the atmosphere, resulting in

global warming,” its website says. “We

believe that we are obligated to stop

contributing to this pollution of God’s

creation wherever possible.”

On this basis, they also try to limit their

use of oil and natural gas if alternatives are

available.

Religion and the climate have not been

paired in New Jersey for long, but today, a

movement of faith-based climate activism has

sprung up all over the state. Dozens of other

New Jersey church buildings of many

denominations and at least three New Jersey

synagogues are also solar-powered, and for

the same reasons.

One of the synagogues is Oheb Shalom in

South Orange. Member Charles Wantman,

who conceived and guided the project, was

exuberant about it: “Next to my son, this is

the most fulfilling thing I have done in my

life,” he says.

The Christ Congregation installed solar panels on the

roof of its church on Walnut Lane, in Princeton, in 2006,

and began drawing electricity from them in 2007, the

first Princeton church to do so. ''We also use no air

conditioning, '' says Pastor Jeffrey Mays. ''We like to say

we use prayer conditioning.''

By Ellie Whitney

Facilitating the “greening” of many houses

of worship and educating their members is

GreenFaith, a religious-environmental

education and training program based in

Highland Park. Besides advising on, and

certifying, the conversion of buildings to

energy efficiency and solar power, GreenFaith

trains personnel from houses of worship in

religion-based environmentalism.

Besides houses of worship, many

nonprofit groups are concerned about the

climate and attract members based on ideals

such as love of nature and concern for the

poor and the disadvantaged.

One such group is the newly launched New

Jersey chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby

(CCL) in Lincroft. CCL was founded only three

years ago, but it already has chapters all

across the United States and Canada and is

single-mindedly pursuing its objective: to

persuade the U.S. Congress to enact effective

climate legislation.

Members of the Lincroft chapter have

diverse faith-based motivations. Co-leader

Lynn Dash, a retired clinical social worker, is

guided by the Unitarian Universalists’

Seventh Principle: “respect for the

interdependent web of all existence of which

we are a part.” Co-leader Mike Morton, a

retired banker who lives in Brick, says that

after spending 30 years of his life “working in

the sheltered environment of Wall Street

investment banking and being completely

unaware of the contribution I’ve made to the

destruction of the planet’s resources, I

decided that, on retiring, I would spend the

rest of my life trying to make this a better

world for future generations.”

Rosemary Wright of Ocean Grove, a retired

high school teacher, says she was attracted to

CCL because it operates “like Gandhi, not out

of anger, but in peace.” David Reskof, a retired

psychiatrist from Shrewsbury, is concerned

for his grandchildren: “I don’t want them to

die of environmentally caused disease.”

How widespread is this faith-based

climate-activist movement? It is huge,

encompassing all religious groups, not only in

the United States but all over the world.

Princeton resident Lynn Whitney, at CCL’s

request, conducted an informal survey of all

the religious faiths she could identify and

found them all in agreement that human

beings are responsible for climate disruption

and environmental destruction and that time

is running out.

Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians,

Catholics, Quakers, Jews are all in accord —

and so are Hopi Native Americans, Shintoists,

Jainists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and

many interfaith groups. All seem to agree that

we have been given this Earth to care for and

that we are doing grievous harm in many

ways, but especially by using fossil fuels to

excess and thereby causing global warming.

In the process, we are already destroying

much of creation and making life impossible

for millions of our poorest brothers and

sisters. Faith groups see this as a kind of

blasphemy. Global warming is, according to

the leaders of these organizations, the

greatest moral challenge of our time.

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. Lynn Whitney is her daughter.


Growing Grassroots Support for a Price on

Carbon In July 2011, the Brisbane Times

reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead

in the water. Polling revealed that support for

the legislation was low and that Prime Minister

Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the

bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a

politician compared a progressive activist

organization supporting the carbon price,

GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League(GetUp!, by

the way, is also the organization that

produced this moving and wildly viral video in

support of marriage equality last fall).

Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon

price squeaked through the Australian

parliament months later, sending a jolt of

optimism through the global community. Like

other climate bills, it ended up being

pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive

an SUV through, but one of the largest per-

capita carbon emitters in the world was clearly

willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate

action. The skeptics had been proven wrong.

Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news

of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem

hardened to federal policy after the American

Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in

2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to

the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding

another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even

mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy

enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the

mantra Democratic Congress members and

environmentalists alike are fond of repeating

these days.

But like crocus bulbs shifting under the

frozen ground, a movement has been building

for federal climate policy. And the time is right:

belief in climate change among the general

public has just taken an upward turn, according

to Brookings.

Partly due to the pressure applied by groups

like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other

leaders are beginning to warm up the public on

carbon pricing.

NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen has

been promoting fee-and-dividend legislation for

years, recently appearing on MSNBC with

Treehugger’s Brian Merchant. Soon after,

theWashington Post editorial page released a

small flurry of pieces on carbon taxation. First,

that famous tag-team, Reps. Henry Waxman

and Ed Markey, along with former Republican

House members Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne

Gilchrest , endorsed a carbon price in an op-ed:

We could slash our debt by making power

plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon

emissions that endanger our health and

environment. This policy would strengthen our

economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil,

keep our skies clean — and raise a lot of

revenue.

Then the paper’s fickle editorial

board endorsed Pete Stark’s existing carbon tax

bill (H.R. 3242 – the Save Our Climate Act)

currently languishing in committee. Leadership

on the issue from politicians, even from well-

known liberals like Stark, is sorely needed.

Especially when the public, for better or

worse, forms opinions based on their

statements.

The LA Times editorial page, too, has been

drumming up support for a carbon tax. Their

neighbor to the north, British Columbia, passed

a carbon tax three years ago and the evidence

of its success is a hopeful sign.

Just do it. Put a price on carbon, one way or

another. How much is levied, and where and

exactly how it’s levied, aren’t as important as

the principle that we all pay something for

emissions.

In Canada — and in California — it will take

time, and trial and error, to get climate change

regulations off the ground and working. It’s

difficult, yes. Complicated too. But it’s not

economic or political suicide.

One can’t deny some heavy lifting is in order,

but with luck we can learn from our past

missteps. The environmental community will

need to better communicate its goals, think

outside the insular lobbying strategies of yore,

and truly work with groups across the political

and interest spectrum from unions and

environmental justice groups to business and

religious leaders, and especially Republicans.

That last point may seem like a joke in the

current political climate but behind the scenes,

many Republicans do support a carbon tax.

David Roberts of Grist has even gone as far

as calling carbon pricing a fundamentally

conservative policy. Case in point: Republican

frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic advisor

Gregory Mankiw is a strong proponent of a

carbon tax, and his observations about the

resistance to the policy reflect Roberts’ own:

In the debate over global climate change,

there is a yawning gap that needs to be bridged.

The gap is not between environmentalists and

industrialists, or between Democrats and

Republicans. It is between policy wonks and

political consultants.

Among policy wonks like me, there is a

broad consensus. The scientists tell us that

world temperatures are rising because humans

are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic

economics tells us that when you tax

something, you normally get less of it. So if we

want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we

need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D.

We’re encouraged by statements from

conservatives like Mankiw, Boehlert and

Gilchrest, but what’s really moving us these

days is the growing army of committed citizen

lobbyists around the country we’ve seen jump

into the lion’s den. They’re inspiring us to

rethink our rote pessimism, and the idea that

the general public can’t be rallied around this

issue.

Regular folks from Tallahassee, Florida to

Kansas City, Missouri are spending evenings and

weekends and taking time off work to visit their

representatives and senators, write letters to

their town newspapers and build support for

climate legislation at the local level. And their

work is sophisticated enough to rival the big

guns. When Citizens Climate Lobby leaders in

one of our local chapters visited the office of a

powerful Republican in Congress to make the

case for a carbon tax, they were told they were

the most well-prepared citizen lobbying group

the staffer had ever seen.

Citizens Climate Lobby operates on the

belief that politicians don’t create political will:

they respond to it. It’s both an overwhelming

and empowering idea. We’re appealing to the

highest common denominator in people,

motivating politicians to cast off their cowardice

and soul-search on the legacy they’re leaving

the planet with.

Erica Flock is a co-leader of the DC chapter

of Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan

volunteer group dedicated to helping people

exercise their personal and political power for

climate action.


[No title – need to get off oil]

If we keep burning fossil fuels at the

current rate, we will be worrying about a lot

more than hydro rates and countryside views

in a lot less time than 100 years. Stating that

wind power is not an efficient source of

energy because “it always needs a parallel

backup system” is no reason not to use it.

Wind can provide a major portion of demand,

thus reducing our fossil burn. Increasingly,

methods are being developed to store power

effectively.

We need to use every means possible to

get off our addiction to oil.

Dave Carson

Dundas, Ont.

NEWS ITEM, MARCH 14, 2012

Speaker urges action against climate change About 100 people snacked on brownies

Tuesday night as they listened to not-so-

sweet predictions about the future of climate

change [at a meeting hosted by the Citizens

Climate Lobby Gainesville chapter].

“The word ‘catastrophic’ is in fact what

we’re talking about today,” Unity College

President Stephen Mulkey told the audience

in Smathers Library East.

Mulkey, who was a botany professor at UF

from 1996 to 2008, presented scientific

evidence of climate change.

His presentation, “Losing Control of the

Global Thermostat — Implications for

Florida, the U.S. and the World,” focused on

issues of greenhouse gas emissions and

combating climate change.

Mulkey said oil, natural gas, coal and

nuclear fuel account for 90 percent of

America’s energy.

The proportion of carbon dioxide

emissions is climbing, he said, which is

believed to be causing more frequent extreme

weather events.

Jessica Steele, a UF doctoral student of

geography, said she took home some

knowledge on the climate situation.

“There were a lot of statistics and figures

in there that I was unaware of,” she said. “I

learned a lot.”

Mulkey proposed sustainability science as

the climate-change solution. This applies

science from multiple disciplines to solve

environmental problems.

He said UF students can combat climate

change in a simple way: Get involved.

“Get active. Get politically active,” he said.

“Get engaged in the political process.”

Jenna Lyons

Alligator Contributing Writer


Reduce oil consumption Here we go again. Gas prices rise, people

start to change their transportation methods;

then gas prices fall, and people buy gas-

guzzling vehicles again. Then, due to some

foreign instability, gas prices skyrocket again

and we repeat the cycle.

Oil companies profit, and our personal

incomes decline. Each cycle saps our

economy. I believe it is not the price itself that

hurts; it is the constant change up and down.

Nobody can plan. We need stable oil prices,

which can only come from reducing our

dependence on foreign oil.

There is a way to do this and insulate our

economy at the same time. The solution is a

revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend. Oil

companies would pay a carbon fee. So

everyone would pay a higher price at the

pump.

People who use more would pay more.

The fee would fund a per-capita dividend, a

per-person rebate, which would keep these

dollars circulating in our economy. People

who use less than average would get back a

bigger rebate than their added costs.

This market solution would drive us to

permanently transition our transportation

methods to more efficient choices.

Let's bite the bullet and, once and for all,

adopt a plan to reduce our oil consumption.

In the long run, we will all be better off if we

do.

Anne Waymouth

Madison


Break oil cycle

The price of gasoline has hit $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, and many are worried we could see $5-a-gallon gas by the summer. These higher gas prices threaten to slow our economic recovery, and some politicians are citing this as a reason to open more areas up for oil drilling and to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Neither of these actions will have any immediate impact on the price at the pump. In the long run, our nation will be better off if we end our self-destructive addiction to oil, no matter where it comes from. Like the movie “Groundhog Day,” the U.S. keeps repeating the same scenario on oil that began decades ago with the first Arab embargo: A crisis somewhere in the world disrupts global oil supplies, sending prices higher and hurting our economy.

The only way to protect our economy from price shocks in the oil market is to break the cycle of dependency on oil. America must transition its automotive fleet to vehicles that run on electricity or biofuels, fuels that can be produced from clean, renewable sources.

We can speed that transition with a price on carbon that makes these alternatives more attractive to consumers. Returning revenue from the carbon fee to the public will shield our economy from the impact of rising energy costs associated with the fee. To break our addiction to oil and to improve our energy and economic security, Rep. Yoder, Rep. Jenkins, Sen. Roberts and Sen. Moran should support legislation, like the Save Our Climate Act, that prices carbon. Frank Schawaller

Lawrence


When science speaks

Re Don’t Vet The Messenger (editorial, March

7):

With our current federal government, it

seems that ideology rules the day, not the

inconvenient findings of peer-review

scientists and experts in the field. If

government policy is not based on evidence-

based research, what does this mean for

Canada?

Cheryl McNamara

Toronto


President Obama isn't to blame for gasoline

prices When I read that President Barack Obama

is responsible for the rising cost of gasoline, it

raised my disbelief to a new level. Here are

some facts:

• Obama didn't tell you to buy a car that

gets 15 miles per gallon.

• If Obama had walked into the Oval

Office in 2008 and lifted every moratorium on

drilling and exploration, none of that oil

would be available to pump into your gas-

guzzling SUV yet.

• Once this treasure trove of oil is

pumped out of U.S. territory, it will go up for

sale on the world market and be sold at the

going rate. If you believe that U.S. oil

companies are going to sell U.S. oil to

Americans at a discounted rate, you slept

through your school's lecture on free-market

economy.

• The U.S. has some of the cheapest

gasoline in the world. If you want it cheaper,

you will need to move to Venezuela, Cuba or

Saudi Arabia. Then you can have a whole list

of new problems to blame on Obama.

If you want to do something constructive,

buy a car that gets better mileage, start a car

pool and let your congressmen know you

want more public transportation. That's how

the rest of the world copes with rising gas

prices.

Leigh Smith.

Montpelier.


Glen Ecklund: Tornadoes show need for carbon fee

Dear Editor: The recent tornadoes are,

unfortunately, part of a trend. As predicted

decades ago by climatologists, storms are

becoming more frequent and more severe,

due to climate change. NOAA’s National

Climatic Data Center keeps track of the

number of billion-dollar climate disasters

each year (adjusted to current dollars). The

numbers are striking.

In the 1980s, there was an average of 1.2

such disasters per year. The last 10 years

have averaged six per year. 2006 set a record

of nine such disasters. 2011 shattered that

record with 14! These numbers include

storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and

weather-related fires.

In addition, we are headed for a mass

extinction, as changes in temperature and

rainfall alter many sensitive habitats. Lots of

species cannot relocate as easily as we can.

It is urgent that we reduce the greenhouse

gas emissions that are causing these changes,

because it will take decades for the

atmosphere to return to normal.

The Carbon Fee and Dividend Act, or the

similar Save Our Climate Act, would put a

gradually increasing fee on fossil fuels,

according to how much carbon they emit

when burned. The burden on people would

be reduced by returning all or most of the

money to the people, in equal shares per

person. International trade inequities are

solved with adjustments on imports and

exports, adjusting for energy cost differences.

This, plus eliminating fossil fuel subsidies,

would help alternative energy sources

compete in the market, reducing our

dependence on oil, and saving the climate at

the same time.

Glen Ecklund

Madison


Drilling for oil just won’t fix the problem

Your editorial “Still gasbags” hit the nail on

the head. Thank you for taking such a rational

and calm stand on the issue. You’re right —

we’re at the mercy of the markets when it

comes to petroleum. Drilling for more oil

won’t solve the problem: World demand is

just too high, and we’ll never harvest enough

to bring the price down and keep it down.

After all, once our domestic sources start

increasing, we’ll be in competition with China

and other high-demand countries who will

want to buy our oil. And as long as demand is

high, prices will have nowhere to go but up.

Sustainable, non-carbon-based energy is

the long-term solution. We can get started

right away with a carbon-fee system that

promotes solar, wind and thermal energy.

Like anything else, building facilities to do

this may be subject to market forces, but we

have tools such as the Save Our Climate act to

harness those forces and start building the

infrastructure. Just imagine freeing ourselves

from dependence on oil, creating jobs and, at

the same time, taking a big step forward to

improving the outlook for our climate.

Bill Nelson, Henrico


Make N.M. an Energy Leader I MUST CALL into question the apparent

lack of research done prior to writing the Journal’s Feb. 13 rebuke of the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. You stated that the crude product was headed for the Gulf Coast “for shipping and refining.” But you didn’t include that the target markets are slated for export and not domestic use. You went into great detail about the Canadian environmental impact of precious habitat and wildlife, yet failed to mention Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive, agriculturally valuable and groundwater-rich Sandhills region.

Regarding job creation, TransCanada’s estimate of 20,000 jobs was refuted recently by the highly esteemed Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute. Using TransCanada’s numbers, CUGLI’s calculations came in with only 5,000 temporary positions.

As for job security, N.M.’s own New Energy Economy’s numbers are far more positive:

⋄ “N.M. ranks second in the nation for solar power potential and 12th for wind power potential.

⋄ The solar power industry will create an estimated 19,000 new jobs in New Mexico by 2016. This is the highest projected per capita job creation in the country.

⋄ The average wage in New Mexico is $36,700. The average clean tech job in the U.S. pays $57,786 —more than 55 percent higher.”

The most worthy step we can take to help ease the transformation to new, clean energy is to support H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, which will place a fee on carbon emissions and return the proceeds to every American.

Further investigation also reveals that 68 percent of new electricity capacity came from wind and solar in 2011 in the EU. While our policymakers are busy arguing about last century’s resources, we’re losing the global race to sustainability.

New Mexico has what it takes to make it happen! We should be a national leader in this arena. Why not let the 20th-century fossil fuels lie and get onboard with 21st-century renewables? LISA SILVA

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

Keystone rejection right call Mark Gordon (Feb. 19) stated that the

White House was “stupid” for not approving

the Keystone pipeline. To the contrary,

Obama’s rejection of the project was the right

call.

Extraction and processing of tar sands is

very energy intensive, releases huge amounts

of CO2, destroys vast areas of forest and kills

wildlife. The pipeline would not improve our

energy security since the oil is a commodity

and is sold on the world market to the highest

bidder.

More important than the immediate

environmental problems caused by this

pipeline are the long-term climatic effects of

the continued use of fossil fuels. The Keystone

pipeline does nothing to promote the

replacement of fossil fuels with clean energy

sources. We can however, by imposing a

carbon tax on fossil fuels at their source,

encourage private-sector investments in

clean energy sources. Those taxes can be

returned to all citizens in the country to offset

the higher energy costs.

A bill that does just this (Save Our Climate

Act, HR 3242) is before Congress and should

be supported.

John R. DeLapp

Anchorage


Fate of the world is at stake As a climate-change activist, and member

of Citizens Climate Lobby, I am continually

amazed that people deny that we are

experiencing climate change ("On climate

change, society trails science," Monday). We

need to act with great urgency to change our

energy equation to reduce, and quickly, our

use of carbon-based fuels.

In Philadelphia, with its many multifaith

communities, there is a great opportunity for

our faith-based leaders to speak up, in their

congregations, and publicly, on the reality of

human-caused climate change, and our need

to be a part of the solution. We have

wonderful opportunities to take climate-

change-mitigating actions here, with strong

leadership from Mayor Nutter, who has

talked about Philadelphia being a "green city,"

and City Council.

Our time is limited before we pass a

climate tipping point. This is about the world

we are bequeathing to our unborn and

unimagined descendants. Will our

descendants look back at us and ask, "What

were they thinking?" The fate of the world is

at stake. The time to act is now.

Peter Handler

Philadelphia


Climate Change—Science vs. Propaganda I applaud the Asbury Park Press on its

recent series of investigative articles

exposing the damage being done to many

waterways in New Jersey, Barnegat Bay in

particular. These pieces were

commendable in their use of fact and

science to communicate essential

information on these vital issues.

At the same time, I’m struck by the

inconsistency between these series and

your editorial stance on climate change,

where you’ve printed a mix of letters and

op-eds from “both sides.” The essential

point that’s overlooked is that climate

change is not a matter of popular political

opinion, but rather an imminent

catastrophe recognized by the

overwhelming majority of climate

scientists based on all the relevant facts.

I can only hope that in the future the

Press will place more weight on scientific

evidence in selecting editorials to appear

on climate change. The public desperately

needs to be better informed on this

problem, particularly with all the

distortions and propaganda out there.

This past week we learned that

General Motors can be added to the list of

mega-corporations funding climate

change-denier propaganda through the

Heartland Institute. In this disinformation

campaign, GM joins leading fossil fuel

companies, Koch Industries, and others

who apparently fear their business

interests would be threatened if the

public learned the truth about how our

increasing carbon emissions exacerbate

the ongoing man-made damage to the

climate.

Newspapers have a crucial role to play

in helping the public distinguish science

from propaganda so we can collectively

take effective action before it’s too late.

Tony Giordano

Fair Haven, NJ


War with Iran won’t solve our nation’s oil

dilemma

Regarding the Feb. 26 letter, “Big oil,

politicians manipulating public,” it appears

that the writer is endorsing the idea that the

U.S. should deploy its military once again, this

time to prevent disruption of oil exports from

Iran.

Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan

serve as reminders of the devastating

consequences of going to war in the name of

protecting our oil interests in the Middle East.

In this case, however, in addition to the

prospects of another protracted war, we

would be provoking an unbalanced leader

who is suspected of trying to develop nuclear

weapons. The risk that this would represent

for the U.S. and its allies cannot be overstated.

It is crucial that we begin to recognize the

fact that oil reserves are limited and are

rapidly being depleted. We need to look to an

expanding — not contracting — future and

focus on replacing finite fossil fuels with

infinite, sustainable, renewable energy.

Our best move is to adopt a market

solution: a carbon-fee and dividend system

that levies a gradually rising fee on the

carbon that enters our economy in fuels and

rebates the proceeds to all citizens through

equal monthly dividends.

This will protect consumers from

increasing fuel costs, stimulate investment in

renewable energy and promote the needed

shift from dirty to clean energy.

Mike Morton, Brick

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2O12

The call to care for creation Thank you for the excellent opinion

piece "On climate change, society trails

science" (Monday). As a pastor, I was

especially glad to see religious voices

included in the article. People of faith are

organizing in Philadelphia and around the

country to raise awareness of the

spiritual, moral, and ethical issues raised

by climate change. God's call to care for

creation and bring justice to the poor

demands that we act now.

Cheryl Pyrch

Pastor, Summit Presbyterian Church,

Philadelphia


Offshore drilling has unfathomed downside

I’m tired of watching our political

representatives in Washington, D.C., support

the interests of profit-driven corporations

while ignoring the interests of those of us

who elected them.

Last month, the fossil fuel industry was the

beneficiary, as Congress approved legislation

that opens the Atlantic coast to offshore

drilling. Disappointingly, Rep. Jon Runyan (R-

Mount Laurel), who “represents” many

coastal communities, sided with the oil

interests. To their credit, Reps. Chris Smith

(R-Hamilton) and Frank LoBiondo (R-Mays

Landing) both crossed the aisle and voted

with all of New Jersey’s Democratic Congress

members in opposing the drilling.

If there were no downside, then further

drilling might be justified, but this course has

major negatives: the virtual inevitability of

spills with attendant ecological damage,

increasing carbon dioxide emissions at a time

when atmospheric CO2 is already too high

and rising higher, and ongoing dependency

on outside suppliers. Even if pumped from

along our own shores, oil is handled by

multinational, not domestic, companies, to

their profit, not ours. Moreover, oil reserves

are limited. We need to look to an expanding,

not a contracting, future, by replacing finite

fossil fuels with infinite, sustainable,

renewable energy.


solution: a carbon fee-and-dividend system

that imposes a gradually rising fee on the


rebates the proceeds to all citizens. This will

shield consumers from increasing fuel costs,

stimulate investment in renewable energy

and promote the needed shift from dirty to

clean energy.

We can achieve energy independence, but

not by offshore drilling.

Mike Morton

volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby

Brick


A moral imperative on debt,

climate change

To allow the next generation a fair shot

at its future, it’s our obligation to not

leave a legacy of uncontrolled debt and

climate change. I applaud Henry A.

Waxman, Sherwood Boehlert, Edward J.

Markey and Wayne Gilchrest [“To slash

debt, look to the skies,” Washington

Forum, Feb. 24] for understanding this

moral imperative. They called for a price

on carbon to encourage a shift toward

cleaner energy and to reduce the deficit.

Sure, energy prices would go up — if

we’re serious about deficit reduction,

there is no free lunch. But there is such a

thing as a healthy lunch: A price on

carbon would help curb dangerous

emissions. And much of the revenue could

be rebated to households, providing them

the funds to invest in energy efficiency

and deal with higher costs.

Nils Petermann

Washington


Smart subsidies needed on energy Congress again shows favoritism towards

dirty, polluting finite fuels (“Congress deals

major blow to wind power industry”, Feb.

19). Because Congress failed to renew a tax

credit for wind production, the industry

may decide to take their jobs to other

countries that provide more support, such

as China which has now become the world

leader in wind production. The Department

of Energy estimates that 20% of our power

could come from wind by 2030, but

Congress’s on again off again support of

clean energy in this country discourages

companies from making long-term

investments in the U.S.

Meanwhile the fossil fuels industry

pollutes our atmosphere with climate-

changing greenhouse gases while

simultaneously polluting our democracy

with enormous amounts of campaign

contributions to Congress to ensure fossil

fuel subsidies never go away. Not only do

fossil fuels receive far greater subsidies

than renewables but the fossil fuels

industry is not required to pay for other

externalities such as free military

protection, health care costs from pollution,

and the mother of all market failures -

climate change.

A fair way to correct this market failure is

to eliminate all subsidies and require the

fossil fuels industry to pay for their

externalities in the form of a rising carbon

tax. This tax would send a clear signal to the

market and encourage private investment

in clean energy thereby reducing our

emissions. Revenue from this rising tax

could be distributed back to taxpayers as a

dividend to encourage even more

investment in clean energy and energy

efficiency so taxpayers can keep more of

their dividend check. H.R. 3242 the “Save

Our Climate Act” does just that. Contact

Rep. Todd Platts and urge him to co-

sponsor H.R. 3242. It’s time for Congress to

invest in our future; after all we didn’t stop

burning whale oil because we ran out of

whales- we came up with a better idea.

Jon Clark

York


Sun has all the energy we need, and we can’t

destroy it! OK, it's now a good time to reveal a

not-so-hidden secret.

Our human race is contributing to the

destruction of Mother Earth with our

unsustainable lifestyle by polluting,

wasting and over-consumption. The

practice is universal and led by

Americans, including those of us living in

the San Diego region.

Now, look up into the sky and observe

our greatest source of energy, the sun,

which we can not destroy. It's too far

away. The sun just keeps going and going

and going, like the well-known bunny

battery. We are beginning, just beginning,

to capture the free and clean energy it

produces and use it in our daily lives. It's

better than lightning, Mr. Thomas Edison.

Think about it.

Roger Boyd

Solana Beach

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

Keystone rejection right call Mark Gordon (Feb. 19) stated that the

White House was “stupid” for not approving

the Keystone pipeline. To the contrary,

Obama’s rejection of the project was the right

call.

Extraction and processing of tar sands is

very energy intensive, releases huge amounts

of CO2, destroys vast areas of forest and kills

wildlife. The pipeline would not improve our

energy security since the oil is a commodity

and is sold on the world market to the highest

bidder.

More important than the immediate

environmental problems caused by this

pipeline are the long-term climatic effects of

the continued use of fossil fuels. The Keystone

pipeline does nothing to promote the

replacement of fossil fuels with clean energy

sources. We can however, by imposing a

carbon tax on fossil fuels at their source,

encourage private-sector investments in

clean energy sources. Those taxes can be

returned to all citizens in the country to offset

the higher energy costs.

A bill that does just this (Save Our Climate

Act, HR 3242) is before Congress and should

be supported.

John R. DeLapp

Anchorage


Fate of the world is at stake As a climate-change activist, and member

of Citizens Climate Lobby, I am continually

amazed that people deny that we are

experiencing climate change ("On climate

change, society trails science," Monday). We

need to act with great urgency to change our

energy equation to reduce, and quickly, our

use of carbon-based fuels.

In Philadelphia, with its many multifaith

communities, there is a great opportunity for

our faith-based leaders to speak up, in their

congregations, and publicly, on the reality of

human-caused climate change, and our need

to be a part of the solution. We have

wonderful opportunities to take climate-

change-mitigating actions here, with strong

leadership from Mayor Nutter, who has

talked about Philadelphia being a "green city,"

and City Council.

Our time is limited before we pass a

climate tipping point. This is about the world

we are bequeathing to our unborn and

unimagined descendants. Will our

descendants look back at us and ask, "What

were they thinking?" The fate of the world is

at stake. The time to act is now.

Peter Handler

Philadelphia


Offshore drilling has unfathomed downside

I’m tired of watching our political

representatives in Washington, D.C., support

the interests of profit-driven corporations

while ignoring the interests of those of us

who elected them.

Last month, the fossil fuel industry was the

beneficiary, as Congress approved legislation

that opens the Atlantic coast to offshore

drilling. Disappointingly, Rep. Jon Runyan (R-

Mount Laurel), who “represents” many

coastal communities, sided with the oil

interests. To their credit, Reps. Chris Smith

(R-Hamilton) and Frank LoBiondo (R-Mays

Landing) both crossed the aisle and voted

with all of New Jersey’s Democratic Congress

members in opposing the drilling.

If there were no downside, then further

drilling might be justified, but this course has

major negatives: the virtual inevitability of

spills with attendant ecological damage,

increasing carbon dioxide emissions at a time

when atmospheric CO2 is already too high

and rising higher, and ongoing dependency

on outside suppliers. Even if pumped from

along our own shores, oil is handled by

multinational, not domestic, companies, to

their profit, not ours. Moreover, oil reserves

are limited. We need to look to an expanding,

not a contracting, future, by replacing finite

fossil fuels with infinite, sustainable,

renewable energy.


solution: a carbon fee-and-dividend system

that imposes a gradually rising fee on the


rebates the proceeds to all citizens. This will

shield consumers from increasing fuel costs,

stimulate investment in renewable energy

and promote the needed shift from dirty to

clean energy.

We can achieve energy independence, but

not by offshore drilling.

Mike Morton

volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby

Brick


A moral imperative on debt,

climate change

To allow the next generation a fair shot

at its future, it’s our obligation to not

leave a legacy of uncontrolled debt and

climate change. I applaud Henry A.

Waxman, Sherwood Boehlert, Edward J.

Markey and Wayne Gilchrest [“To slash

debt, look to the skies,” Washington

Forum, Feb. 24] for understanding this

moral imperative. They called for a price

on carbon to encourage a shift toward

cleaner energy and to reduce the deficit.

Sure, energy prices would go up — if

we’re serious about deficit reduction,

there is no free lunch. But there is such a

thing as a healthy lunch: A price on

carbon would help curb dangerous

emissions. And much of the revenue could

be rebated to households, providing them

the funds to invest in energy efficiency

and deal with higher costs.

Nils Petermann

Washington


Smart subsidies needed on energy Congress again shows favoritism towards

dirty, polluting finite fuels (“Congress deals

major blow to wind power industry”, Feb.

19). Because Congress failed to renew a tax

credit for wind production, the industry

may decide to take their jobs to other

countries that provide more support, such

as China which has now become the world

leader in wind production. The Department

of Energy estimates that 20% of our power

could come from wind by 2030, but

Congress’s on again off again support of

clean energy in this country discourages

companies from making long-term

investments in the U.S.

Meanwhile the fossil fuels industry

pollutes our atmosphere with climate-

changing greenhouse gases while

simultaneously polluting our democracy

with enormous amounts of campaign

contributions to Congress to ensure fossil

fuel subsidies never go away. Not only do

fossil fuels receive far greater subsidies

than renewables but the fossil fuels

industry is not required to pay for other

externalities such as free military

protection, health care costs from pollution,

and the mother of all market failures -

climate change.

A fair way to correct this market failure is

to eliminate all subsidies and require the

fossil fuels industry to pay for their

externalities in the form of a rising carbon

tax. This tax would send a clear signal to the

market and encourage private investment

in clean energy thereby reducing our

emissions. Revenue from this rising tax

could be distributed back to taxpayers as a

dividend to encourage even more

investment in clean energy and energy

efficiency so taxpayers can keep more of

their dividend check. H.R. 3242 the “Save

Our Climate Act” does just that. Contact

Rep. Todd Platts and urge him to co-

sponsor H.R. 3242. It’s time for Congress to

invest in our future; after all we didn’t stop

burning whale oil because we ran out of

whales- we came up with a better idea.

Jon Clark

York


War with Iran won’t solve our nation’s oil

dilemma

Regarding the Feb. 26 letter, “Big oil,

politicians manipulating public,” it appears

that the writer is endorsing the idea that the

U.S. should deploy its military once again, this

time to prevent disruption of oil exports from

Iran.

Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan

serve as reminders of the devastating

consequences of going to war in the name of

protecting our oil interests in the Middle East.

In this case, however, in addition to the

prospects of another protracted war, we

would be provoking an unbalanced leader

who is suspected of trying to develop nuclear

weapons. The risk that this would represent

for the U.S. and its allies cannot be overstated.

It is crucial that we begin to recognize the

fact that oil reserves are limited and are

rapidly being depleted. We need to look to an

expanding — not contracting — future and

focus on replacing finite fossil fuels with

infinite, sustainable, renewable energy.


solution: a carbon-fee and dividend system

that levies a gradually rising fee on the


rebates the proceeds to all citizens through

equal monthly dividends.

This will protect consumers from

increasing fuel costs, stimulate investment in

renewable energy and promote the needed

shift from dirty to clean energy.

Mike Morton, Brick

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

Sun has all the energy we need OK, it's now a good time to reveal a

not-so-hidden secret. Our human race is

contributing to the destruction of Mother

Earth with our unsustainable lifestyle by

polluting, wasting and over-consumption.

The practice is universal and led by

Americans, including those of us living in

the San Diego region.

Now, look up into the sky and observe

our greatest source of energy, the sun,

which we can not destroy. It's too far

away. The sun just keeps going and going

and going, like the well-known bunny

battery. We are beginning, just beginning,

to capture the free and clean energy it

produces and use it in our daily lives. It's

better than lightning, Mr. Thomas Edison.

Think about it.

Roger Boyd

Solana Beach


Bill proposes a carbon tax that will benefit

environment, economy Increasing gasoline prices at the pump

have provided plenty of fodder for debate in this election year. And yet, the only surprise is that anyone is at all surprised. Because the market for petroleum is global, its price fluctuations follow the economics of supply and demand and generally will follow an upward rising trend as the global supply diminishes and demand increases.

It is true that price increases will provide incentive for oil companies to go after the harder-to-get sources as the easy-to-get oil already is consumed or spoken for. But these latter sources require more energy to get to and have a greater environmental impact.

None of the carbon-rich energy policies proposed in recent Republican primary debates (e.g., more domestic drilling, a tar sands pipeline from Canada) will protect us in the long term, and they only will prolong the illusion that this powerful but scarce resource actually is not scarce. Such an illusion may be comforting to us but devastating to generations who will follow us.

The State of the Union addresses from both Presidents Bush and Obama have highlighted our nation’s “addiction to oil” and our need to transition to cleaner fuels. In addition, concern over burgeoning government debt is justifiably widespread. A newly-introduced bill in Congress offers a market-based approach to a gradual replacement of carbon-based energy with more sustainable forms.

The Save Our Climate Act of 2011 (HR 3242) would apply a fee on carbon-based fuels correlating to the CO2 produced when combusted. It would return most of the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a dividend and use a portion of the revenue for deficit reduction.

The fee, placed on carbon at the point of entry into the economy, begins at a rate of $10 per ton in the first year and increases by $10 per ton each year. The point of entry is the port accepting oil tankers or the mine where the coal is unearthed, and foreign suppliers, unless they have a similar policy, will be penalized via a border adjustment.

How will this affect the price of our gas at the pump? About 9.5 cents per gallon for every $10 per ton, regardless of the market price. Every dollar that is collected, over the first $10 per ton, is awarded back to the public in an annual dividend check — similar to those received by Alaska residents for oil revenue.

On the household level, this encourages gradual behavior change and replacement of old appliances and vehicles with more energy-efficient models.

The predictable price on carbon gives businesses a needed level of certainty and sends a clear price signal to shift investments, and thus new job creation, away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The bill is good for business and is revenue-neutral with respect to the federal government. The bill is favorable over a cap-and-trade approach, as the price on carbon is transparent and predictable.

Businesses and the free market like certainty and transparency, and with this bill, the certainty comes with national benefits.

The benefits to the nation are numerous — renewable energy can compete in the marketplace, national security is enhanced with less reliance on imported oil, the U.S. has a chance to become a world leader in new-generation energy and the atmosphere is spared from additional greenhouse gases that severely alter and exacerbate patterns of drought, flooding and storm intensity.

The benefits to the state of Oklahoma also are net positive, as this legislation favors the usage of our immense natural resources of wind, solar power and natural gas — the last

of these being less carbon-intensive than either coal or oil. Increased interest will bring new investors and businesses to the state and could result in Oklahoma being the spawning ground for renewable energy innovation.

OU students and faculty should contact our congressional representatives and ask that they co-sponsor this bill. We also invite you to join our Citizens Climate Lobby group here in Norman that meets monthly with similar groups around the country via conference call. Our mission is to create the political will for a stable climate and to empower individuals to initiate the transition to clean energy. The next meeting is 11:45 a.m. Saturday in 101 Robertson Hall.

For additional information, and to find out how you can be involved, contact Jim F. Chamberlain, [email protected], or Catherine Hobbs, [email protected].

Jim F. Chamberlain, research engineer

Water Technologies for Emerging Regions Center, 0U


Fossil fuels get boost

Re: "Harsh reality of green energy doesn't yet

match its spin," The Journal, Feb 16.

In Gary Lamphier's analysis, the green

energy industry is a disaster story, the

implication being that the fossil fuel industry

is much more successful. But what Lamphier

failed to tell his readers is that the field of

play is heavily skewed in favour of the fossil

fuel industry.

In today's energy market, the fossil fuel

industry receives multibillion-dollar

government subsidies. On top of that they get

to off-load onto the public at large many of

the costs associated with their products: the

health-care costs from pollution, reclamation

costs from damaging the environment,

climate costs attributed to greenhouse gas

emissions, security costs of keeping the Fifth

Fleet in the Persian Gulf.

With these advantages, how could the

fossil-fuel industry not outperform the green

energy industry?

We need to level the playing field, and one

way of doing it is with a true-cost-pricing of

carbon - a pricing policy that takes all the

costs into account. With such a policy in place,

at the very least, we'd see much better results

from the green energy sector.

Peter Adamski, Edmonton


Climate of concern I applaud Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

for addressing the serious issue of

greenhouse gases and our changing climate

(“Climate change ‘call to action’ issued,” Feb.

17). Sociologists and psychologists tell us why

so many people vehemently reject the reality

of human influence on our climate. But we

have little time to wait for their eventual

awakening. The science is clear and action is

needed now, such as putting a revenue

neutral price on greenhouse gases. Even

skeptics will rejoice in the benefits of our

becoming more energy independent and cost

efficient.

I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston

Churchill during the heat of a different battle:

“This is not the end. This is not the beginning

of the end. But this is the end of the

beginning.” Let us join together to fight

against catastrophic climatic disruption.

Clinton’s new initiative is the start of our new

beginning.

Doug Hansen

Carlsbad

FEATURE STORY, FEBRUARY 18, 2012

Caring for creation: Faith groups have a role in

environmental causes At first glance, the simple red brick church at the end of the road looks a lot like all of the other red brick churches in Farmington, Utah. There's a view of the mountains on one side and a maze of power lines on the other, but on this fairly warm February day, the clue to what makes this church different is on the roof: solar panels and a light dusting of snow.

The solar panels are an obvious difference. The snow is subtle. It melted on the grass and the pavement a long time ago, but on the roof — a place often warmed by a building's escaping heat — it's still frozen. That's a good sign to the Interfaith Power and Light activists gathered in the lobby for a tour of the building owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For one thing, it's a sign of energy efficiency. For another, it's a sign of change.

Faith groups have not always held a proactive role in addressing environmental issues. In the late 1960s, some scholars even went so far as to blame the Christian concept that humans have dominion over the Earth for the damage that's been done to nature over the centuries. Religious groups in turn, have bristled at an environmentalist cause that seems to focus on worshipping nature, rather than the God who created it. But experts say religious attitudes toward the environment are now shifting to be more proactive toward preservation.

In 2010, an average of 47 percent of churchgoers said their clergy regularly teaches about the environment during Sunday sermons, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. And the message is commonly one of stewardship and

responsibility, experts say. As faith groups take more of an active role in teaching worshippers to "care for creation," some conservationists say they look to religion to have a key role in changing America's environmental future ?— and addressing climate change.

Some changes are already taking place, such as in this Farmington church. It capitalizes on natural light, saves water, provides its own energy and is recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program.

"It's just being a good citizen," said David Alley, an architect for the LDS Church, as he led the crowd through the church's ultra-eco-friendly prototype. "One of the impacts of LEED certification is (asking), 'Do we become better citizens?' I think we do."

Religious influence

Last June, Dave Folland, a retired pediatrician-turned-environmental activist with the Citizens Climate Lobby, found himself sitting in a senator's office in Washington, D.C., discussing climate change.

He wasn't having much success — until he read out loud a statement from a scientific committee assembled by the pope last year to study why certain glaciers are melting.

"We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants," reads the statement, signed by members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the

Vatican. "We are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish."

Religious influence

Last June, Dave Folland, a retired pediatrician-turned-environmental activist with the Citizens Climate Lobby, found himself sitting in a senator's office in Washington, D.C., discussing climate change.

He wasn't having much success — until he read out loud a statement from a scientific committee assembled by the pope last year to study why certain glaciers are melting.

"We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants," reads the statement, signed by members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican. "We are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish."

High percentages of religious people surveyed — between 73 percent and 89 percent — said they favor tougher environmental laws and regulations, but when it came to views on global warming, as few as 34 percent of white evangelical Protestants said they believe climate change is caused by human activity, compared with 58 percent of those unaffiliated with a religion who believed the same thing, according to a 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

That distinction is one indication of just how deeply religious concepts are ingrained in culture, says Mary Evelyn Tucker, director of the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University. The Forum extensively studies the role of faith in understanding complex environmental issues and provides public access to that research at www.yale.edu/religionandecology.

"Most people wouldn't immediately go to reflecting on their views of nature as formed by religious views, and yet all cultures are deeply informed by norms and values that are religiously based," Tucker said from her office in Connecticut. "People have spiritual experiences in nature … they seek it out for renewal and inspiration. It is that awe and wonder that every human being is exposed to that is one of the most profound religious experiences."

'Love thy neighbor'

The Rev. Canon Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest who established the national, multidenominational organization Interfaith Power and Light in 1998 to facilitate religious involvement in addressing climate change, loves God.

Therefore, she loves nature, she says.

And she believes religion is key to shaping America's environmental future and views on climate change.

"If your faith guides your thinking, it has the potential of being very influential," Bingham said in an interview from her home in California. "If you love God and love your neighbor, then stewardship of creation is part of being a faithful person.

That wasn't always a common way of thinking, as the late Lynn White explained in his 1967 essay called "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." In it, the professor of medieval history at the University of California, Los Angeles, pinned environmental problems to Christianity through a passage in Genesis 1:28, that refers to humans as having dominion over the Earth.

White's essay, in which he said, "We shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man," struck a nerve that still resonates today. Bingham credits White for first spurring faith groups to get involved in environmental issues and make a change she

hopes will have an equal and opposite impact of White's assertion.

But while more faith communities promote the idea that recycling is encouraged and pollution is frowned upon, gaps in the religious community's acceptance of climate change still exist because climate change is a much more politically charged and polarizing issue, says Darren Sherkat, a sociology professor at Southern Illinois University.

Religious conservatives have not been as amenable to the idea of limiting energy usage and carbon emissions, says Sherkat, who wrote an analysis on the influence of religion on environmental concern and activism in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion in 2007.

"There is a wide gulf between where liberal Christianity is and where conservative Christianity is," Sherkat said in a recent interview. "In some parts of the country, the

petroleum interests and the religious (perspectives) are the same thing … that God gives us the oil."

Still, back in the chapel in Utah, there's a small triumph for the crowd of activists who thrill over things like carbon footprint reduction. They are excited to see the evidence that the religious community may already be changing its thoughts about climate change and having an impact.

Through the church's environmentally conscious design, this particular building saved at least 63,000 pounds of coal; 65,000 pounds of carbon and $7,749 in less than a year.

"Wow," the group exclaimed to their tour guide when they heard the numbers. "How does that feel?"

"It feels wonderful," Alley replied.

Article by Amy Choate-Nielsen quotes Dave Folland, MD, leader of the Citizens Climate

Lobby’s Salt Lake City chapter

OPED, FEBRUARY 12, 2012

Marin Voice: 'Carbon fee' a good investment

By Rachel F. Ginis and Bob Brown

PRESIDENT Barack Obama was right in his State of the Union address to make a clean energy agenda his second pillar in creating long-lasting prosperity in America. The president is calling for ending subsidies to energy companies that are taking in record profits, for American leadership in the burgeoning clean energy technologies, for retrofitting existing buildings to reduce energy use and employ our building trades, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But every State of the Union address, from the days of President Carter, has included proposals to become more energy independent, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to reduce the environmental and economic risks of climate change.

In his 2006 address, President Bush vowed to end our "addiction to oil." After 30 years of good intentions, why haven't we made a dent in our energy consumption? Between 1990 and 2007 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases increased 17 percent, three quarters of which comes from burning fossil fuels.

The shift to renewables has been stymied by a lopsided energy market that provides subsidies for the production of fossil fuels, but doesn't take into account the costs of extracting and burning them.

The U.S. gives about $9 billion in annual tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The system hasn't changed because of the influence of energy corporations on the government.

The energy industry in theU.S. spends over $360 million each year lobbying Congress. The largest individual recipient was Speaker of the House John Boehner.

It's hard to have faith that this Congress can arrive at a bipartisan energy policy to significantly decrease our addiction to fossil fuels.

Is there a way to move the market toward efficiency and renewable energy?

We think so. It's simple, straightforward and has bipartisan appeal. It's called a Carbon Fee and Dividend.

It was first proposed in Washington by former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Party. A similar bill has been recently introduced in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242).

Here's how it works: A steadily rising fee is placed on carbon-based fuels at the point of production or port of entry. All revenue is returned in equal shares to individuals to offset increased energy costs.

A household that has a lower-energy lifestyle would see a profit. Those with large or multiple homes, fuel-guzzling vehicles, recreational vehicles, etc. will pay more for those choices.

With a guaranteed price signal, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency will become good investments, creating jobs and renewing our technological dominance.

Environmental and human health will improve.

Inglis said, "If we just do two things, attach all costs to all fuels and eliminate all subsidies for all fuels, then free enterprise can solve the energy and climate challenge."

The Congressional Budget Office agrees that a carbon fee is the most economically efficient option for reducing carbon emissions.

It is estimated that the Save Our Climate Act would raise and return more than $2.6 trillion in revenue and reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 25 percent in the first 10 years. The average dividend per person would start at about $160 per person, rise to $590 in year five and $1,170 by year 10. Individuals would see the tangible benefits of reducing their energy use.

Marin has made great strides toward a clean energy agenda with green building

ordinances and our very own clean energy agency, but they have been hard won.

Putting a steadily rising price on carbon would vitalize and duplicate these efforts in communities through out California and across the nation. This is the conversation we need to be having going in to the next election, anything else would be irresponsible.

Rachel F. Ginis of Corte Madera is a green residential designer and building specialist. She is also the founder of the Marin Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. Bob Brown is the former community development director of San Rafael and adjunct faculty at Dominican University. For more information on the Fee and Dividend option, visit the Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org) and/or the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org)

COLUMN, FEBRUARY 7, 2012

Oil sands and warming go together

By Cathy Orlando, Cheryl McNamara, and George Morrison

Discourse on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the B.C. coast got off to a raucous start with name calling, accusations and concerns that Canada's economy is at stake even before the hearings in Kitimat, B.C. even began.

Underlying the debate is the assumption that the oil sands are good for Canada's economy. But are they more a Faustian bargain? Is Canada sacrificing the stability of the environment and other key economic sectors for the sake of generating as much money as possible from a non-renewable commodity?

While concerns over the pipeline's safety are legitimate -any spill could seriously affect the ecologically sensitive west coast and Fraser River for hundreds of kilometres -- there are more widespread concerns that have largely been ignored.

If given the green light, the Gateway pipeline will serve as a conduit for accelerated oil sands development. The Harper government prefers not to put oil sands and climate change in the same sentence, but they do go together. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warns that development of remaining oil sands and coal reserves will tip the planet towards dangerous global warming.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuel has increased the parts per million (ppm) of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is warming the planet. Civilization has prospered for 10,000 with greenhouse gases stable at 280 ppm up until the dawn of the industrial revolution. That figure is now at 392 ppm and rising by an astonishing 1.5 to two ppm per year.

Changes of just one or two degrees Celsius to the global mean temperature can cause radical changes in the climate -widespread drought in some regions, flooding in others, and more severe and extreme weather events, which undermine agriculture, economic development and public health.

Indeed, many parts of the globe, including Canada, are beginning to experience extreme weather-related disasters due to a hotter and moister atmosphere.

Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurer, has documented more than 30,000 natural catastrophes worldwide over 40 years.

According to the reinsurer, the number of registered loss occurrences from extreme weather throughout the world has almost tripled since 1980.

Aside from the costs associated with a warming climate -- the 2011 floods in Manitoba cost the province $815 million -- accelerated oil sands development is costly in other ways.

While it is projected that the pipeline could contribute $131 billion to Canada's gross domestic product and $27 billion in tax

revenues between 2016 and 2030, Canada's manufacturing sector contributed $159.7 billion to the economy in 2010 alone.

However, our manufacturing sector has been in decline since 2001. This is partly due to the rapidly developing oil sands, which has helped strengthen Canada's currency.

There is a name for this phenomenon. It's called the Dutch disease, so named in the 1970s when the discovery of gas in the North Sea drove up the Dutch currency. The high Dutch guilder increased export prices and led to the decline of Holland's manufacturing sector. For Canada, this is beginning to look a lot like deja vu.

Other warnings are coming from unusual quarters. The very conservative International Energy Agency recently advised countries not to lock themselves into insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy systems -- which the Gateway Pipeline will surely do for Canada.

Clearly a national debate on the future of the oil sands is warranted.

Happily Canadians have an opportunity to do just that. Provincial energy ministers have begun meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources to chart a national energy strategy.

While some see this as a means to fast track oil sands development, others, such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Citizens Climate Lobby are calling for a broad-based carbon pricing mechanism that is transparent and predictable to help optimize energy conservation, as well as spur development and innovations in clean energy.

According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, "switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities."

We couldn't agree more.

Cathy Orlando is project manager and Sudbury leader for Citizens Climate Lobby Canada.

Cheryl McNamara is communications officer and Beaches East York group leader.

George Morrison is Parkdale High Park group leader.


Madeleine Para: Obama: Don't give up on

climate act yet

President Barack Obama mentioned

climate change just once in his State of the

Union speech, saying that he didn't expect

Congress to adopt comprehensive climate

change legislation. He should consider the

world he is leaving to his daughters and make

climate change his top priority instead of

giving up on Congress.

The consequences of our energy decisions

in the next five years will determine how high

a price our children will pay. If we do nothing,

they'll endure refugee and humanitarian

crises due to rising sea levels, loss of arable

land and extreme storms.

While Obama is correct that cap and trade

is dead, there's a better approach. The Save

Our Climate Act would charge energy

companies a fee on carbon emissions at the

source, so they pay for their pollution. The fee

starts low and rises every year, making clean

energy and efficiency more attractive to

investors and consumers than fossil fuels.

The first year's revenues would be used

for deficit reduction. After that, American

households would receive an equal portion of

the revenues to offset rising energy prices.

For conservatives, this offers an option that's

market-driven and doesn't add to the size of

government.

When leaders fail to lead, it's up to citizens

to take charge. We must insist Obama and

Congress enact the Save Our Climate Act.

Madeleine Para, Madison,

Member, Citizens Climate Lobby


Outrageous rhetoric will surely backfire The Harper government has attempted to

discredit all who oppose its proposed

Northern Gateway pipeline as “radicals”

backed by foreign money. Internal

government memos released recently

apparently even refer to pipeline opponents

as “enemies of Canada.” This outrageous

rhetoric is so obviously false that it will surely

backfire.

While there is certainly interest in this

issue by American environmental groups —

after all, tar sands pollution will not stop at

the border — the vast majority of “foreign

money” and influence in the pipeline

approval process comes from the foreign-

based oil companies involved and the

international markets who want the oil they

will produce here.

Tar sands oil will not be for Canadians and

most of the money earned will also leave the

country.

On the other hand, all the risk of oil spills on

land or on the pristine B.C. coast remains with

the local residents, wildlife and ecosystem

surrounding the pipeline.

The Harper government is also glossing

over the fact that the land it is presuming to

build the pipeline on is traditional aboriginal

land which has never been ceded to any

government.

Mr. Harper and his spokespeople are trying

hard to portray these legitimate stakeholders

in the process as “hijacking” the political

process.

Actually, Mr. Harper, these people are the

political process. If you believe in democracy

then listen to your citizens!

Dr. Mark Polle

Red Lake


Plan your own retirement, if you can, Harper

says Last week, in Davos, Switzerland, our

Prime Minister made several surprising

statements, one being his intent to revamp

seniors benefits and retirement income

programs including age eligibility issues. How

surprised we seniors are to hear that when

not a whisper had been heard during the

most recent election!

This statement becomes even more

surprising when our government plans to

continue the subsidy of Canadian mining

companies’ Social Responsibility Projects

abroad. With our tax dollars yet!

Also surprising was Mr. Harper’s use of the

term “unsustainable” when discussing Old

Age Security! When did he learn the meaning

of that term? Canadian politicians are being

urged to work on the development of a

sustainable economy within a sustainable

environment, by people like myself who

believe that we cannot have one without the

other. And what are we getting? Among other

things, like “major domestic reforms,” the full-

scale development of the Alberta tar sands,

known around the world as the source of

“dirty oil.”

Patricia Weese

Red Lake


Ending green program unwise Re: Government pulls plug on ecoEnergy

Retrofit program, Jan. 31

When are we going to see a headline that

the government plans to end the millions of

dollars in annual subsidies to oil and gas

companies — some of the most profitable

companies in the world? My partner and I

participated in the ecoEnergy Retrofit

program. Not only did the energy retrofits

improve the comfort and energy efficiency of

our 92-year-old home, it reduced our utility

bills and employed 11 contract workers to do

the work.

This program helps reduce energy waste

and greenhouse gases, and employs local

people, whereas government handouts to

fossil fuel companies encourage waste and

contribute to global warming. Isn’t it time

that the government prioritize clean energy

and join the 21st century?

Jane Moffat

Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2 – 8, 2012

Climate change in Hamilton

Hamilton’s financial challenges with stormwater and flooding appear likely to get worse as the evidence accumulates of escalating climate change and local numbers align with global shifts. While only a couple of 2011 local storms (in July and October) caused damage, globally the last two years have been the wettest on record and generated catastrophic flooding in many parts of the world.

Despite a strong La Nina, 2011 was also the ninth warmest year on record and the 35th consecutive year that average global temperatures were above average. Hamilton temperatures are rising at close to the global average and rainfall amounts have also gone up according to a conservation authority study that examined records for the last 41 years.

The global average temperature increase so far is 0.8°C, while Hamilton’s is up 0.9°C in the period examined by the HCA study. Annual precipitation has only risen a little over an inch per year but more of that has been coming in extreme bursts as predicted by climate change scientists.

In fact, in most respects those predictions are turning out to be underestimations – not surprising given that science demands a high level of proof for forecasts. The arctic ice cap, for example, was originally predicted to melt by 2050, but we now could be headed to ice–free summers later this decade. In 2011, the extent of arctic ice was more than a third less than the average between 1979 and 2000

and was far below that average in every month last year.

While extreme weather–related events continued to batter Asia and Latin America last year, both Australia and the United States were also hit hard. Nearly 60 percent of the US endured either extreme drought or extreme flooding in 2011 and 14 separate events broke the $1 billion mark in damages. The previous one–year record was eight.

In Canada there was extreme flooding in Quebec, and across Manitoba and Saskatchewan last year. Hamilton recorded 68mm of rain in a 24–hour period in mid–October, and had a very wet spring but in smaller daily amounts.

Windsor wasn’t so lucky – setting an all–time record for the wettest year ever during that same October storm that drenched Hamilton. By the beginning of December, it had recorded 1477mm compared to a normal precipitation total of 844mm and convincing city councillors to offer a basement flooding subsidy for the installation of sump pumps and backwater valves.

That’s a step taken by Hamilton council in the fall of 2009 and last year the city extended its “protective plumbing program” to all owner–occupied homes connected to the sewer system. It provides up to $2000 in grants and now requires that all new homes include backwater valves.

Carbon dioxide concentrations now stand

at 392 parts per million – exactly 40 percent higher than the pre–industrial period level of 280 ppm. The maximum safe level of 350 ppm was exceeded more than 20 years ago, and current concentrations will force nearly another degree even if all emissions stopped today.

Locally the unusual January temperatures both conform to predictions and follow an established trend. The HCA study found average winter temperatures have increased nearly twice as fast as the annual rate.

“Average winter mean temperature has increased 1.7°C”, notes the HCA study, while summer averages are only up 0.3°C, and spring and fall ones have climbed 0.7°C. Precipitation has dropped in the winter season, climbed marginally in spring, and more substantially during the summer months.

In the wake of the study, the HCA board directed their staff to develop a climate change strategy that is “designed to increase the climate resilience of the watersheds.”

Don McLean

Stoney Creek, Ontario


We must act on ‘weird scary’ change Weird weather is taking its toll

There’s weird strange and there’s weird

scary. I suspect non-human creatures are

experiencing the latter this non-winter. The

human ones not mentioned in the article

should be, too. We are as dependent on

weather stability for our food. Ask a farmer if

weather matters.

Last year was the second wettest in global

records, exceeded only by 2010. Despite the

cooling effects of La Nina, it was the ninth

warmest as well. In the United States, 60 per

cent of the country endured extreme flooding

or extreme drought, and catastrophic floods

hit Thailand, Australia, the Philippines, Brazil,

Pakistan, El Salvador and South Korea,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec’s

Richelieu River area.

For more than 20 years, climate scientists

have been warning of more extreme (weird)

weather events. But scientists by training are

cautious, careful and reluctant to ring alarm

bells. That has led most to say we don’t know

enough to blame individual weather

catastrophes on global climate change. It has

meant nearly all their forecasts are turning

out to be underestimates.

There is now overwhelming evidence of

scary climatic changes already happening,

thus no excuse for Canada to increase

pollution with tarsands exploitation and

dangerous pipeline schemes. Already the

tarsands emit 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse

gases a day — equal to a million cars driving

500 kilometres each. We need to end the

stranglehold of the fossil fuel corporations on

the federal government.

Don McLean

Stoney Creek, Ontario


Climate change High marks to the Tribune for the

thorough, thoughtful front-page article about

the climate change impact of aging coal-fired

power plants.

Climate change is real, as made clear

through decades of hard work by thousands

of scientists.

Their painstaking efforts have untangled

the puzzle of Earth's energy balance and our

growing impact on it from fossil fuel

emissions. If we fail to come to grips with this

challenge, the consequences to the health,

wealth and security of future generations

could be dire.

Solutions exist.

All that's lacking is the political will to put

them into action.

Even industry sources such as the Illinois

Chamber of Commerce and the utilities

themselves recognize the need for action. But

because of Washington gridlock, including

blockage of the excessively complex 2010

Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the only

option available for the administration to

address climate change has been through

contentious and difficult regulations, as

detailed in the article.

This is too bad, because a much simpler

and more effective approach, supported by

scientists and economists all across the

political spectrum, is a carbon tax-and-rebate

mechanism such as the Save our Climate Act

of 2011.

This would impose a fee on fossil carbon at

its source (coal mine, oil well, etc.), with most

of the revenue returned back to American

households in the form of a rebate or tax

break. This would uncork a flood of private

investments in renewable and carbon-neutral

energy. It would also encourage measures to

greatly increase energy efficiency.

Every member of our Illinois

congressional delegation should support this

and put this problem to rest for once and for

all. We owe it to our children.

Perry Recker, Blue Island

Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2012

Save Our Climate Act would get the job done

In his State of the Union speech, President

Barack Obama spoke of the need for a “clean-

energy standard” to help manufacturers

eliminate energy waste. There is not nearly

enough trust in his administration to do this.

Fortunately, there is another path to this goal:

the Save Our Climate Act. It would focus on

the problem of our undefended atmosphere

and put a fee on fossil carbon dumped there.

No, it doesn’t have a big corporate lobby —

but it would get the job done.

Peter Peteet, Atlanta

OPED, JANUARY 26, 2012

Obama was right to nix Keystone pipeline

By Madeleine Para

In the David and Goliath battle over the

Keystone XL pipeline, big oil has lost twice

now, and their supporters are howling. They

tried to force the president to grant a permit

for the pipeline by attaching it to the payroll

tax cut bill in December, but Obama stood

firm and rejected the pipeline last week. This

is an amazing victory for environmentalists,

since six months ago approval was

considered certain. Though we likely haven’t

heard the last of the project, we actually

stalled Big Oil!

The Keystone XL pipeline now is likely to

be an election issue. As a climate change

activist, I say that this is excellent news. It will

give us opportunities to bring up the climate

crisis, and how to solve it, with candidates

and voters everywhere. We’ll no doubt be

outspent many times over by the fossil fuel

industry, but if we use the same creativity and

tactics (focused actions, civil disobedience

and international pressure) that got us this

far, we can build the political will for further

victories.

Big Oil wants the American public to think

that the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide

jobs and oil. They will repeat their lies and

distortions over and over. Here’s what they

aren’t saying in their ads and speeches.

• The Keystone XL pipeline is a lousy way

to create jobs. It would only create a

few hundred permanent ones and a few

thousand temporary construction jobs,

according to an independent study by

Cornell University. Considering the

billions invested, that’s a paltry level of

job creation. The same investment in

energy efficiency, wind and solar would

provide tens of thousands of jobs.

• The pipeline isn’t about piping tar sands

oil to U.S. markets. It’s an export

pipeline. It would carry oil from Canada

to the Gulf for export overseas, and

would actually increase Midwestern

gasoline prices by eliminating an

oversupply here. The pipeline is about

profits.

• Last year fuel was the No. 1 export in the

U.S., and for the first time in 60 years

we exported more fuel than we

imported.

• U.S. gas consumption is down to its

lowest level in 12 years, according to

the Oil Price Information Service,

despite adding 31 million more cars in

that time.

But the pipeline battle also lets us state

why building infrastructure for more dirty tar

sands oil is all wrong. Canadian tar sands oil

needs to stay in the ground. The decisions we

make as a society in the next five years about

our energy investments will determine the

degree of upheaval our children and

grandchildren will face from a warming

planet. If we build everything that’s planned,

according to the World Energy Report, we

guarantee a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in the

global average temperature. At that level we

risk catastrophe — millions of refugees from

rising sea levels, food shortages, extreme

storms and mass extinctions.

To keep from fighting Big Oil one pipeline

at a time, we need to push Congress to place a

fee on carbon emissions when the fuel is

extracted or imported into the country. A fee

that starts low and rises steadily will shift

investment away from extreme fossil fuels

and into clean energy and efficiency.

Returning the revenues equally to every

household will ease the transition as fossil

fuel prices rise. This is the big battle we need

to undertake, to move us off all fossil fuels.

The fight against the Keystone XL pipeline

is a stepping stone to a new and better energy

system.

Madeleine Para is the Madison group leader for Citizens Climate Lobby and the co-

coordinator of the new 350 Madison Climate Action. She was arrested in front of the White

House last August as part of a massive civil disobedience action against the Keystone XL

pipeline.

OPED, JANUARY 25, 2012

FORUM: Smart energy policy is path to healthy U.S. By Amy Bennett

An olive branch to the North County Times: I agree with the Jan. 20 XL pipeline editorial, "Environmental Disaster," we need energy.

However, I have never heard the claim, as the editorial states: "If we don't buy any more oil, then the rest of the world will follow along and we can all move to 'clean' energy."

I have heard, "If the U.S. leads on smart energy policy, the world will follow."

Can we agree with 97 percent of climate scientists: Warming is a serious man-made problem, and we must lower CO2 as soon as possible? If you decide not to believe in climate change, you can always find an agreeable source, but is their science credible?

The National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change use the peer review process. Peer review is not perfect, but it is reliable; it is the reason we trust cars, airplanes and medicines.

Dr. Muller of UC Berkeley, a Koch-funded former skeptic, said, "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. ... Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate."

If we agree to disagree on science, we have other reasons to promote renewables. John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, predicted that gas would reach $5 per gallon by the end of 2012. Pipeline or not, gas prices

will keep rising. Indian wind-farm builder Mytrah Energy claims it's able to produce wind power as cheap as coal. The International Energy Agency, founded with the support of Henry Kissinger, suggests we have four years to transition our infrastructure to renewables. Let's catch up.

The NCT suggests the pipeline oil would be sold here, but it was never slated to be sold in the U.S. We have other resources.

The Department of Energy predicts that 20 percent of U.S. energy will come from wind by 2030, supporting 500,000 jobs. (The coal industry supports only 174,000 jobs nationwide.) A Cornell study states the pipeline would create only 2,500 to 4,650 jobs, lasting less than two years. A TransCanada executive admitted only several hundred permanent jobs would come from the pipeline.

Even if the pipeline created a million jobs, when do we follow the axiom, 'First, do no harm'? If 97 percent of doctors say your child needs treatment, how do you ignore them? Band-Aid jobs now won't fool our kids; just ask them.

There is a compromise. Economists tell us to tax things we want less of to encourage what we want more of. This "Fee and Dividend" legislation won't increase the size of government.

If we tax fossil fuels and return revenues to Americans, it will spur private capital in renewable technology and create jobs. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242) needs support in Congress. It will take human energy and a focus on doing the right thing, not the convenient thing.

Amy works for Citizens Climate Lobby.

350 or bust BLOG, JANUARY 24, 2012

Why I Am Putting All My Eggs in the Citizens

Climate Lobby Basket

By Christine Penner Polle

Citizens Climate Lobby is a well-organized

grassroots organization made up of Canadians

and Americans who want a sustainable future

for their children, and are willing to work on

creating the political will for a sustainable

climate. In the process, they are empowered to

claim their own political power in a way many

citizens don’t these days. I have been a CCL

volunteer for over a year, and have learned

more about climate change and working for

political change than I ever would have

imagined. Today’s guest blogger is Cathy

Orlando, Project Manager for Citizens Climate

Lobby Canada. Cathy recently left her job as

the Science Outreach Coordinator at

Laurentian University in Sudbury to devote her

time and energy to creating the political will

for a sustainable climate. The “Cathy Orlando

Environmental Stewardship Award“ was

created in 2011 by the national science

organization Let’s Talk Science to recognize an

outstanding and innovative environmental

activity by a “Let’s Talk Science” volunteer.

Truth be told I am not passionate about

climate change. My true passions are poverty,

children and community. I know that climate

change is going to severely impact all of those

things. Thus I have put all my eggs for the

next while into the Citizens Climate Lobby

(CCL) basket to push for a price on carbon

pollution federally and bilaterally with the

USA.

I feel that CCL has the capacity to make

this happen because they are laser focused,

are using a proven business plan and are

promoting a properly vetted economic plan.

As Sudbury’s group leader, last year I lead

the CCL chapter on less than 10 hours per

month and usually closer to 5 hours per

month.

The three most important things CCL

Leaders do are:

First, gather a small group of people

around them that meets once a month to

improve their education on all aspects of

climate change and motivate each other. It

can be on the Saturday monthly call but

alternatively you can listen to the 20 minute

education piece anytime anywhere online

after it airs. The current ones are on

their home page.

Second, develop a Gandhian-like

relationship with your Member of

Parliament around the issue of climate

change. Present the truth of the science of

climate change and our economic plan

(Carbon Fee and Dividend), ask them to

consider it, and listen carefully to their

responses. The listening part is the most

important part of being a lobbyist because we

seek to find common ground and help

eliminate barriers that might stand in the way

of a politicians doing the right thing; and

appeal to the “big thing” that lies within all of

us

Get articles, letters to the editor and

editorials published in your local media so

that people can become more educated about

the truth of the economics, social impacts,

health impacts, public impacts, global security

impacts and science of climate change and

thus the politicians will be able to act.

Empowerment is energy-giving

There is something magical that happens

when you do this work. At first you might

have to overcome inertia and get out of your

comfort zone, but you grow as a person. You

become empowered. People around you

become empowered. It is very energy giving

work. People don’t believe when I say I am a

shy and sensitive person. I have spoken truth

to power and been in the media more times

than I can count now. As well, I am making

friends for life across this great continent.

When all is said and done I will be able to say

to my grandchildren some day, “I did my very

best at the time of the climate crisis.”

I know when we get a price on carbon

pollution, not only will I have peace of mind,

but I will have grown tremendously as a

human being and have made the most

incredible friends for life. My gut feeling

about the effectiveness of Citizens Climate

Lobby is shared by the Grandfather of Climate

Change, Dr. James Hansen:

“When you go away from here the most

important thing you can do, in my opinion, is to

support the Citizens Climate Lobby because

they are pressuring the government to do what

is in the public’s interest, not big business.” -

Nov. 6, 2011 Washington DC

To find out how you can work to create the

political will for a sustainable climate, and

realize your own personal and political power

at the same time, email Cathy at

[email protected]. Ask

her about joining the introductory call on the

first and third Wednesdays of every month,

or go to the Citizens Climate Lobby website

for more info.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012

Delaying Keystone pipeline the right step

USA TODAY's editorial misses the mark on

the Keystone XL pipeline. That so-called

steady stream of oil that would have been

transported by the Keystone XL was not

guaranteed for U.S. markets. Why should we

have put our country at risk of more oil spills

so that Canada could sell its tar sands to the

highest bidder? Even the non-partisan

Council on Foreign Relations has pointed

out that the pipeline wouldn't have decreased

U.S. reliance on Middle East oil ("Editorial:

Obama's pipeline decision delays energy

security").

President Obama made the right decision

in denying the permit. Even as a symbolic

gesture, it reflects widely held opinion that

fossil fuels are not the energy source of the

future. Other countries know this: Within the

past few months, China has set carbon

emissions limits, and Australia passed a

carbon tax. Many countries in Europe get

large portions of their energy supply from

renewables. Why must the U.S. continue to

wallow in an energy plan better suited to the

20th century?

Let's continue fighting dirty projects such

as the Keystone XL pipeline and finally pass

some meaningful climate legislation such as a

carbon tax. Doing so would give us a jump-

start on the inevitable clean energy economy

of the future.

Erica Flock

Reston, Va.

MY VIEW, JANUARY 19, 2012

What will we tell the children? By Anne Dillon

Last year at the end of October, UC

Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who formerly had been skeptical that the earth was warming, concluded his own ($600,000) two-‐year study (partially funded to the tune of $150,000 by the Koch brothers), undertaken to determine for himself whether or not climate change is real. His findings showed that the world’s surface temperature has risen 1.6 degrees Farenheit (1 degree Celcius) since the 1950s, a finding that corroborated earlier findings of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA. This temperature increase is largely due to the high levels of carbon that are dumped into our atmosphere each and every day. Scientists tell us that the acceptable upper limit of carbon in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. Presently that number is in the 392 range and rising all the time (prior to the Industrial Revolution it hovered around 275).

In large part, our elevated carbon levels are due to our hopeless addiction to a fossil fuel economy where moneyed, corporate interests pull the strings of Republican puppets in Congress, blocking any serious hope of energy reform given that their addiction to this dirty oil money is as appalling as the average taxpayer’s passivity in the face of it. In November of last year, findings published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an esteemed United Nations panel that periodically reviews

ongoing developments in climate research, reported that some of the extreme weather around the world is a consequence of human-‐induced climate change, and we can expect these severe weather patterns to worsen in the years ahead. These patterns include more record-‐breaking temperatures, increased coastal flooding, and greater extremes of precipitation in general. Compounding the severity of this IPCC assessment, the U.S. Energy Department recently reported that greenhouse gas emissions jumped by the highest rate ever in 2010.

Newsflash to parents and grandparents: If we continue dumping carbon into the environment at our present rate, our children and our children’s children will face a variety of devastating environmental, humanitarian and economic catastrophes, which will rock their world and render it unrecognizable. What can we do for them now so that this doesn’t happen? How can we lower carbon emissions so that these potential catastrophes, which we have propelled willy-‐nilly into forward motion, are averted?

On October 25, 2011, Democratic congressman Pete Stark of California introduced the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), which eight House Democrats have signed on to co-‐sponsor. H.R. 3242 would tax carbon emissions at the first point of sale or import at a rate of $10 a ton of CO2 for the first year. This fee would continue to rise by $10/per emission ton annually, until the target goal of 20 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions is reached—estimated to be by the

year 2050. It is projected that $2.6 trillion would be generated in the first 10 years, $490 billion of which would go toward paying down the federal deficit and the remainder returned to American citizens in the form of an annual dividend from the IRS ($160 the first year, $1,170 10 years out).

Under this plan, everybody wins. The environment wins because it is no longer a free and open sewer for polluters; the American citizen wins in the form of money refunded to them from the government; and the government wins in that the deficit is reduced.

Nelson Mandela said, “We know what needs to be done—all that is missing is the will to do it.” Do we have the will to take our

climate back from the rapacious polluters and their greedy, collaborating cronies in Congress? When you look at your children and your children’s children, ask yourself if you have what it takes to do what needs to be done.

And if you don’t . . . what will you tell the children?

Anne Dillon, a volunteer with Citizens Climate Lobby, lives in Waitsfield, Vermont.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 19, 2012

Trying to teach climate change Re "Classrooms feel climate skepticism," Jan. 16

As students take advanced science courses in college or graduate school, they discover that much of what they learned earlier was overly simplified. However, younger students still need to learn the most basic facts about science.

As for climate change, the most basic facts are, first, that humans emit carbon

dioxide; second, that carbon dioxide causes warming; and third, our planet is warming. These basic facts are as certain as the theory of gravity and need to be taught. The complexities can wait until later. Lauren Rafelski La Jolla

JANUARY 15, 2012

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

Climate deniers hit new low with vicious attacks on scientists

The climate deniers are kicking puppies now.

That was my reaction when I heard that Katharine Hayhoe was being deluged with hate mail after stories surfaced that she had written a chapter on climate change for Newt Gingrich's upcoming book, a chapter quickly dropped when conservative commentators began making a big fuss about it. Similar attacks have been leveled against MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel following his speech at a forum for Republicans concerned about climate change. The "frenzy of hate" he's received include threats to his wife.

Anyone who has ever listened to Hayhoe would be as sickened as I was over the vitriolic attacks she has endured in the past week. Being both a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, Hayhoe speaks to faith communities, explaining the science of climate change in easy-to-understand language and also offering the spiritual perspective on global warming: What would Jesus do about climate change?

"My own faith is the Christian faith and in the Christian faith we are told to love our neighbors as much as

ourselves," Hayhoe recently told the Toronto Globe and Mail. "And our neighbors, especially the poorer ones, are already harmed by climate change."

She's co-authored a book with her minister husband, Andrew Farley, titled A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions.

On our conference call with Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers last November, she came across as one of the sweetest and likable persons you'd ever hope to meet (You can listen to that call here). The mother of a two-year-old who's married to a minister and works on climate science at Texas Tech University, Hayhoe never has a harsh word to say about anyone, especially those who disagree with her on the science of climate change.

Like a true Christian, she's done an inordinate amount of cheek-turning lately. News that her chapter was being dropped from Gingrich's book came not from the candidate or his staff, but from the media seeking her reaction. She, however, has been more than gracious. I immediately thought to approach her about posting the "missing chapter" on

our Website, but she declined our offer, saying she did not want to demonize Newt or be mean-spirited.

Did I mention that Hayhoe put in 100 unpaid hours on that chapter?

I'm sure Gingrich wasn't aware of it. Not that it would matter. The former House Speaker has been too busy backpedaling on the climate issue in order to appease the anti-science wing of the GOP that currently calls the tune. When his presidential campaign started picking up steam in December, Mitt Romney went on the attack over Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi on climate change. Before the cock had crowed three times, Gingrich vehemently disavowed the commercial ("I tell you, I don't know the woman!").

The trouble with flip-flopping on an issue, though, is that it's hard to cover all your tracks. Four years ago, Terry Maple, who co-authored A Contract With the Earth with Gingrich in 2007, approached Hayhoe to write the opening chapter of their next book. Word got out about the collaboration in December, and before you could say "Ditto," Rush Limbaugh was blasting Gingrich for working with a non-denying climate scientist, even if she was a Christian.

The disappointment of being dropped from Gingrich's book, though, is nothing compared to the onslaught of hate mail that Hayhoe has endured. Though she's too polite to repeat the words used in those messages, one gets a sense of it from this quote in the Globe and Mail:

"The attacks' virulence, the hatred and the nastiness of the text have escalated exponentially. I've gotten so many hate mails in the last few weeks I can't even count them."

It's been the same for MIT's Emanuel since a video -- "New

Hampshire's GOP Climate Hawks" -- featuring him was posted on Mother Jones' Climate Desk. His remarks were subsequently distorted by right-wing bloggers, some of whom published his email address. He described the emails in a Mother Jones interview:

"What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat... I think most of my colleagues and I have received a fair bit of email here and there that you might classify as hate mail, but nothing like what I've got in the last few days."

Are there new depths to plumb in this "debate"? Physical violence?

I certainly hope not. I'm sure that the Republican candidates for president, even the ones who vociferously deny the existence of climate change, are appalled at the turn the discourse has taken. They should be speaking up and calling for a halt to the hate mail, to keep the conversation civil.

It could start with Gingrich stepping up to condemn the attacks on Hayhoe. As his prospects for the Republican nomination rapidly wane, I hope he'll feel less compelled to appease the vocal and volatile climate deniers. I hope he'll reinstate Hayhoe's chapter in his book with a heartfelt, "My apologies. You shouldn't have been treated this way."

If there's anything positive to come from the attacks on Hayhoe and Emanuel, it's the realization, hopefully, that the deniers have bottomed out. As anyone in a 12-step program can tell you, there's nowhere to go from here than up.

Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate


Destined for climate crash Re: "A climate victory we may regret," Opinion, Dec. 28.

The Journal's editorial board likens the Harper government's climate position to a game of Texas hold'em.

From a risk point of view, I liken our government's position to a game of chicken, wherein two drivers bear down on each other from opposite directions, each daring the other to swerve away. If neither swerves, the result is a potentially deadly collision.

I wouldn't be concerned if it was just the life of his government that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was risking. But what's at stake are the lives of future generations, all because Harper refuses to believe that global warming is caused by humans.

In its latest report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a government body initiated by U.S. President Barack Obama and mandated by Congress) lists 10 key findings, the first of which states that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced."

The finding supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in its 2007 report stated that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-‐20th century "is very likely" the result of human activities.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences supports these findings, as does NASA, the American Geological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for Advancement of Science.

The list goes on. And yet it's still not enough to prompt our government into action.

If the fossil-‐fuel industry needs a subsidy, support for a pipeline or help with a burdensome regulation, Harper is there with a bag of money, pompoms and a regulatory workforce reduction.

But when it comes to action on climate change -‐ the greatest issue facing the world -‐ Harper is an obstructionist and has been since he first darkened our political landscape. Peter Adamski, Edmonton


How to trim fossil fuel use I read the article “States slash heat

aid” and shook my head in disbelief. The article told of a 92 year old Boston resident who may pay $3,000 for heating oil to heat her “drafty trailer” this winter. The part that troubles me is that taxpayer money is going towards heating a “drafty trailer.” Having a draft obviously means there are leaks and gaps in insulation (or possibly no insulation at all) for her trailer. This is taxpayer aid literally going out the window.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against helping those who need it but shouldn’t we be looking at efficiency? Some electric and gas companies give rebates for (or even offer free) energy audits that point out problem areas in your home that may be wasting energy. Spending a few hundred on insulation, caulk, and weather-‐stripping would be a onetime cost and would drop future heating bills drastically (much to the dismay of oil companies), save thousands of taxpayer dollars, give low-‐income

families some much needed comfort from the elements, and begin to reduce climate-‐change-‐causing greenhouse gases.

Why not look beyond efficiency and begin moving away from fossil fuels? With the knowledge that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, we should be doing all we can to wean ourselves from them right now.

There is currently legislation in the House of Representatives that puts a price on fossil fuels and returns revenue back to citizens so they can use this money for projects such as weatherizing. H.R. 3242 the “Save Our Climate Act” is a market based approach to addressing the climate crisis and would send a signal to the market that we should be investing in clean, renewable energies. This is a common sense solution to address a very serious problem. Jon Clark Conewago Township

DEC. 29, 2011

Green Chamber says no to Keystone, dirty fuels By John H. Reaves & Ryan Ginard

TransCanada has proposed the 1,702-‐mile, $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline (“KXL”), designed to carry an additional 830,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil from Canada to refineries near the Gulf. KXL has spawned national controversy and protests.

The fate of KXL lies in the hands of the State Department and President Obama, who campaigned to combat climate change. In November, the president said he would delay any decision until 2013. Congress recently tied a payroll tax extension to a 60-‐day presidential decision on KXL or face an automatic permit grant.

After carefully evaluating pros and cons, the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce urges our government to reject misleading arguments that we would be safer and better off economically pursuing risky unconventional sources of fossil fuels. Instead, we should boost clean energy.

The chamber supports business practices that are sustainable and consistent with long-‐term environmental protection and also enable businesses to participate in the

rapidly growing green economy. It would be irresponsible to invest in infrastructure that hastens destruction of the environment and dependence on extra-‐dirty fuels.

Our nation’s foremost climatologist, James Hansen, says if KXL is built and Canadian tar sands are developed, carbon dioxide could rise to 600 parts per million (since humanity began, only exceeded 290 after Industrial Revolution; “safe” is below 350; currently about 390). He says the “game” (stopping the worst of climate change) would be “over,” leaving dire challenges to our children and planet.

Extracting and refining tar sands is so fuel-‐intensive that the EPA estimates an increase of 1.15 billion tons of greenhouse gases over KXL’s 50-‐year life span.

Processing requires grinding down the surface, often over 50 feet, to get at bitumen seams, then consuming 400 million gallons of water a day to produce petroleum slurry. Ninety percent of the resulting polluted water is dumped into toxic tailing ponds that already cover 65 square miles.

The environmental destruction is inconceivable. The Alberta tar sands set

for extraction are found under forests and wetlands similar in size to Florida.

KXL would traverse our heartland over the Ogallala aquifer that serves farms and 2 million people. The two existing tar sands oil pipelines already have bad records, including an 830,000-‐gallon spill into the Kalamazoo River last year.

Proponents of KXL urge we jump at private investment and jobs. The State Department says projected jobs are around 6,000, not 20,000. Even a large number would not justify the huge environmental cost.

They also claim getting oil from Canada strengthens national security. Yet retired four-‐star generals and admirals concluded in a Rockefeller Foundation study that climate change, if not addressed, is the greatest threat to national security. Furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports we export more petroleum products than we import. Since proponents argue KXL imports would make us more secure, wouldn’t exporting less be a better option?

Moreover, even if the U.S. permits KXL, most of the oil appears destined for other countries. The New York Times reported six companies have already contracted for three-‐quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the one American company, Valero, is reportedly geared toward export.

Meanwhile, China has invested billions in Canada’s tar sands projects. There is currently no way to deliver oil to the Pacific, and disputes with environmentalists and indigenous communities threaten to derail any proposed pipeline.

The chamber understands the need to improve jobs and the national economy. We want America to become the engine of the global economy again. But KXL is not the answer.

Put a price on carbon, such as with Rep. Pete Stark’s Save Our Climate Act, and watch a landslide of capital move to renewables. Add long-‐term regulatory direction and certainty.

Increase utilities’ use of renewable energy nationwide. Allow anyone to sell excess generated power to utilities at a reasonable profit over a long term. Provide low-‐interest funding options for solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects and require use of American products to the fullest extent practical. Do the same for energy efficiency projects. Streamline processing for similar types of renewable projects. Continue subsidies to fledging – and promising – clean industries.

All these would help spur jobs and retrain many of the unemployed.

We face a great moral challenge: whether to lock ourselves into possibly catastrophic climate change or stop using dirtier unconventional fossil fuels. The chamber urges: 1) the U.S. reject KXL, 2) press all nations to leave tar sands in the earth, and 3) create clean energy jobs by pricing carbon and adding regulatory direction.

Reaves, a San Diego-based business and environmental lawyer, is director of policy for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce and co-founder of Ecovolve Partners. Ginard is the advocacy and government relations manager for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce.

DECEMBER 29, 2011

Reject pipeline to protect our environmental future By Madeleine Para and Peter Anderson

As we looked fondly upon our children happily unwrapping presents this holiday season, the time arrived, at long last, to recognize a chilling fact.

We with gray hairs will be dead when the worst toll from global warming falls due, but our young innocents -‐ the very best of what we are and what we leave behind -‐ will remain to reap the whirlwind.

America has so much to be proud of when faced with an imminent crisis, as our grandparents bravely did during World War II. But, truth be told, we have not shown the same resolve in the face of this gathering storm.

Most have heard the sobering statistics about the future threat from climate change: 97% of climate scientists agree that by the end of this century unchecked carbon emissions will likely result in 30-‐foot sea level rises, massive "dust bowl" droughts and increasingly frequent and extreme weather events. We are already experiencing temperature increases, melting glaciers and

unprecedented incidents of crazy weather.

Do you want to make the most important New Year's resolution of your life? Decide to become a climate activist. Averting the worst of global warming demands that we stop burning coal, oil and natural gas and replace them with massive efficiency gains and renewable energy.

The battle rages today over whether to commit enormous investments in fragile places such as the arboreal forests in Alberta, Canada, where Big Oil wants to extract the uniquely dirty tar sands oil and pipe it to Texas, where most of it will be refined and shipped abroad.

Proponents of this $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline have ignored the impact that developing tar sands oil would have on the climate, but National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist James Hansen has stated it would be "game over for the climate." Pipeline proponents claim the pipeline would be good for the economy by creating many jobs. However, the only independent study of the pipeline's impact on jobs, by Cornell University's Global Labor

Institute, concluded the pipeline "will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates."

In response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt converted the automobile industry to wartime production by making it illegal to sell new cars. In 2012, facing the impending threat of climate disasters, President Barack Obama should oppose committing billions to any more extreme fossil fuel exploitation, including the tar sands pipeline that he has the power to deny, and promote the development of renewable energy. If those billions slated for a climate-‐

killing pipeline were redirected into wind and solar power, 35,000 jobs could be created. If we pull together like we did in World War II, we can convert our economy to new sources of energy and emerge stronger than ever.

Act today as if the viability of the world your children will inhabit depends upon it, because it does. Urge the president to reject the tar sands pipeline.

Madeleine Para is a climate activist in Madison who heads the Wisconsin chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. Peter Anderson is a recycling consultant headquartered in Madison.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 28, 2011

No to Keystone pipeline When Dan Memmott wrote

"Approve Keystone Pipeline" (Readers' Forum, Dec. 21), he clearly wasn't considering the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels. He ignored the recommendations of the National Academy of Science and 31 other national science agencies that have addressed the issue for their countries. These groups warn that continued

burning of fossil fuels will cause additional warming of the planet, leading to extreme weather events. We are seeing the consequences of a mere 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature elevation — such as 12 weather disasters causing over $1 billion this year, the most ever in the

U.S., and 13 of the warmest years in human history in the past 15 years. I completely agree with Memmott

that creating 20,000 jobs would be valuable. However, I'm convinced we would be better served to use the $7 billion he mentioned to develop renewable sources of energy and train the people for jobs in that field. This would not only create permanent jobs, but also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and reduce our contribution to climate-‐changing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Bill Barron Salt Lake City

D E C E M B E R 2 7 , 2 0 11

LETTERS

Factor pollution into costs of energy storage ‘‘NSTAR TO test A123’s storage

cell’’ (Business, Dec. 19) straightforwardly reports on the company’s plans to test A123’s grid-‐scale storage systems. However, an industry researcher’s statement that “the lack of cheap energy storage is what is continuing the natural gas and coal paradigm’’ is a significant overstatement. Our continued dependence on natural gas and coal continues because these fuels are not priced to account for the costs their use imposes on society.

These costs include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; aquifer contamination and geological destabilization from hydraulic fracturing; and environmental

degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution. If these costs were included in the prices for natural gas and coal, the economics would shift in favor of conservation; storage, solar, and fuel cells; wind; geothermal; and biofuels. As a result, investors would rush to fund the innovation needed to bring down the cost of energy storage and other technologies.

We would see in hindsight that the implicit subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels were what perpetuated our dependence on them, not the costs of the alternatives. Gary Rucinski Founder Boston chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby

DECEMBER 27, 2011

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

Battling climate change By REX SPRINGSTON Richmond Times Dispatch

Forget soccer mom. Meet enviro mom.

Elli Sparks, mother of two, is walking the walk for the environment and against climate change.

To limit energy use linked to global warming, Sparks tends a garden and raises hens in an "itty, bitty city henhouse" behind her home in Woodland Heights in South Richmond.

Sparks works at home as a fundraiser for nonprofits, which means less driving. She bikes. She uses a clothesline, not a dryer. She keeps her thermostat low.

"We have the kids wear sweaters instead of using heat," said Sparks, a 5-‐foot, dark-‐haired ball of energy.

Her husband, Rob Staropoli, 42, is on board environmentally. Working at home as a cabinetmaker, he uses special glues and finishes that give off little or no pollution.

Sparks, 45, a Baltimore native who was raised a Lutheran, now practices a nondenominational form of worship that drives her environmentalism. Her religion, she said, involves "a very personal understanding of my spiritual relationship with the creator and creation."

She would like that creation to stay intact. And that's where her battle against climate change comes in.

Credit: EVA RUSSO/TIMES-DISPATCH Elli Sparks shows off one of her hens in her backyard in South Richmond. Sparks leads the Richmond chapter of a group concerned about climate change.

Sparks spent five years tending to her son, Peter, now 10, who was born with a heart defect. Surgery finally healed Peter, and Sparks, who had put her passion for environmentalism aside during Peter's period of ill health, began to look into the issues about two years ago.

In August 2010, she pulled from a library shelf a book on climate change — "Eaarth" by nationally known environmentalist Bill McKibben.

"I sat down and read that book, and I wept the entire time. I cried as I was reading about climate change and the impact it was having on people, on animals, on plants, on our planet," she recalled. "It was just overwhelming. ... I would look at my two beautiful children and think, 'What kind of future do you have?' "

The vast majority of climate scientists say the planet is warming, and the evidence is strong that humankind is playing a major role by burning fuels such as coal and oil that release heat-‐trapping gases.

Scientists say climate change is raising sea levels, threatening low-‐lying areas; endangering wildlife habitats; and posing potential problems for the Chesapeake Bay, among other ills.

Warnings about warming are coming from scientific organization around the globe, including the venerable National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. Still, some people believe climate change is a myth.

Sparks said she has empathy for those in "denial mode."

"It's a natural human response to something that's overwhelming. ... To look it seriously and honestly in the face, it's scary, and it's hard to imagine how we are going to pull together and solve this."

In March, Sparks founded the Richmond-‐area chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby, a San Diego-‐based group that encourages personal and political action to fight global warming.

By setting examples and contacting lawmakers, Sparks said, "we want to create the political will for a sustainable climate."

Richmond's fledgling climate group has about 15 members. They include Richard Taranto of Richmond, a retired Navy commander who worked in the service as an oceanographer and meteorologist.

Sparks, he said, "is basically a very concerned citizen. ... She's a very caring person. If more people could live and work and communicate as she does, I think our community and our country and our world would be a lot better place to live."

Sparks and Staropoli live in a sky-‐blue, two-‐story frame house on a large lot with six hens, two Muscovy ducks, a dog and the two children. (The other is Sophia, 13.) They home-‐school their children.

The ducks followed Sparks as she showed off her backyard garden and menagerie the other day. "They're coming to see what's going on."

Some environmentalists brandish slogans and banners. Sparks tries friendly persuasion, often bringing homemade bread and sodas to people who may not share her views.

"I've learned in my life that it is important to come from a place of love, not from a place of fear."

After all, Sparks said, "I'm just a little old mom in Woodland Heights."


Hastening our demise Re: "The return of Gov. Moonbeam,"

Editorial, Dec. 18: Gov. Jerry Brown may not be making great strides solving California's economic issues, but calling his climate-‐change leadership "the lowest point to date" is irresponsible. Climate change is the most serious issue facing the planet, yet because of U.S. short-‐term thinking driven by politics of sound bites, we are only hastening our demise.

We are in a serious economic crisis exacerbated by extreme climate events. The year 2011 set a record with 12 extreme weather events of more than $1 billion in damage. What effect will this have on property insurance rates? The economic damage to farmland, crops and cattle alone has been devastating and will likely continue. Yet our policies do little to

lessen the impacts of our human activities.

Leading us in the right direction is Rep. Pete Stark's H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that taxes carbon-‐based fuels, returning most of the revenue to consumers with a portion directed towards deficit reduction. I urge support for this bill, which is straightforward and found on the Web.

Meanwhile, the reference to "evidence" of the debunked "Climategate" is old news and fully exonerated. See www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-‐misinformation-‐stolen-‐emails-‐climategate.html .

Peg Mitchell San Marcos

READERS WRITE, DEC. 18, 2011 CLIMATE ACT A start toward reduced carbon emissions

We should all breathe a sigh of relief (“Climate deal doesn’t make things worse — or better,” ajc.com, Dec. 11). The climate talks in Durban didn’t solve global warming, and there is a lot left to do — but an accord is in place. After the hottest decade in history, any progress is welcome.

The politicians cannot solve the greatest problems we face, but if they

support the Save Our Climate Act and put a reasonable price on emitting carbon, they can hand us the tools for the United States to put our energy and ingenuity to work to lead the world to reducing our emissions by 2015 (as we must). Our greatest days are before us — if only we will seize them.

— Dr. Timothy S. Hanes, Atlanta

CEDAR RAPIDS


We can’t wait until 2020 to cut emissions While it is encouraging that a path

forward now exists for an international agreement on climate change, the deal completed Dec. 11 in Durban, South Africa, will allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue rising until 2020. By that time, we may well exceed the tipping point on global warming.

Extending the Kyoto Protocol to 2017, implementing a legally binding pact to limit greenhouse gases by 2020 and including China and India and especially the United States in the pact are some positive breakthroughs that we should celebrate. But it’s clear from what the science is telling us and the increasing number of extreme weather events that we can’t wait until 2020 to start cutting fossil fuel emissions.

A bill introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., the Save

Our Climate Act of 2011 (H.R. 3242), places a steadily rising tax on carbon-‐based fuels and returns revenue to consumers on a per-‐capita basis. Border adjustments on imports from nations that don’t have a similar pricing mechanism provide a strong incentive for other nations to implement their own carbon tax.

In the face of global crisis, the world waits for U.S. leadership. We must lay aside partisan bickering and develop a national policy of sustainable energy use.

H.R. 3242 is a workable plan. It is revenue neutral and encourages the free market to move into alternative energy development. I urge Rep. David Loebsack to become a co-‐sponsor. Elisabeth Robbins Marion


What is our gov't waiting for? Put a price on carbon and let market decide winners, losers Re Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto — CJ, Dec. 13: The International Energy Agency’s recently released 2011 World Energy Outlook warns if our fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will “lose forever” the chance to avoid dangerous climate change. The NOAA’s Climate Extreme Index for 2011 reveals the U.S. has seen the most severe precipitation extremes on record this year. This follows news that a record number of billion-‐dollar weather disasters have occurred in North America in 2011. At the American Geophysical Union meeting last week, Russian scientists reported that “fountains” of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are being released from the melting Siberian permafrost “on a scale never seen before.” It is to this backdrop that the Harper government has moved to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international climate change treaty. If only this meant that instead of messing around with half-‐hearted, piecemeal

attempts to address the most urgent issue of our time our federal government was serious about tackling it head on. A truly conservative approach to this daunting yet conquerable challenge would be to remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, put a price on carbon pollution, and allow the free market to decide the winners and losers. Carbon fee and dividend is a market-‐based climate change solution that is simple and transparent and sends a clear message to business about the move to clean energy. Individual Canadians, not corporations or the government, receive the money collected to help cushion them from the short-‐term costs of the shift to a green economy. Best of all, our children and grandchildren receive the gift of a stable climate, cleaner air and water, and an economy that runs on sustainable sources of energy. What is our government waiting for? Christine Penner Polle Red Lake

READERS WRITE, DEC. 16, 2011 RENEWABLE ENERGY Proposed legislation needs to be passed now

Regarding “Climate deal avoids bottom line” (News, Dec. 12), I find myself wondering what it’s going to take for us to get our act together and move aggressively toward a renewable energy economy. The logjam in Durban underscores the importance of developed countries (such as the U.S.) leading the way with new technology and clean energy.

This will accelerate when we have a realistic pricing model that takes

into account environmental and public health impacts of burning fossil fuels.

Proposed legislation, HR 3242, sends clear price signals to the market that will accelerate the development of alternatives without putting undue stress on citizens.

We need to pass this legislation now — and move back into a position of leadership on global issues like climate change and renewable energy. — Brandon Sutton, Atlanta


Climate progress It was encouraging to see the

Tribune's report on the outcome of the climate talks in Durban, South Africa: a path forward to a worldwide legal agreement to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. At long last, the biggest and fastest-‐growing greenhouse gas emitters -‐-‐ China, the U.S. and India-‐-‐ have come to grips with the most urgent and contentious issue facing humanity.

Unprecedented bouts of budget-‐busting extreme weather in recent years have given us a taste of what to expect if we fail to follow through. But while the agreement is encouraging, we can ill afford to wait until 2020 to start bringing down our fossil fuel emissions. We must act now to meet our responsibility to future generations.

The simplest, most transparent and most fiscally conservative policy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is a

revenue-‐neutral carbon tax. Impose a fee on carbon-‐based fuels at the wellhead or mine exit, based on carbon content, and rebate the proceeds back to American families. This would unleash the free market to determine the most cost-‐effective methods to cut carbon emissions, whether through efficiency, renewables, carbon capture, or whatever else American ingenuity can produce.

Legislation based on this approach, the Save Our Climate Act, has been introduced in the U.S. House. Given the urgency of the situation, our congressional delegation should give this bill serious consideration. It's time for the politicians to stop posturing and act in the best interests of America and the world.

-- Rick Knight, Ken O'Hare, Perry Recker and Jack Baker, Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicagoland Chapter


U.S. should take the lead on carbon curbs The Dec. 12 front-‐page article

“Outcome of climate talks falls to Asia” highlighted the importance of addressing carbon emissions in China and India, which are the No. 1 and No. 3 carbon emitters, respectively. While cutting emissions in these countries is critical, the United States (No. 2 emitter) is a much worse offender per capita and must pass emissions legislation as soon as possible.

A bill sitting in Congress now, the Save Our Climate Act, would put a tax on carbon and use the revenue to help consumers pay for higher energy costs and pay down the deficit. Passing such legislation would not only mitigate climate change but also would encourage other big emitters like China and India to follow our lead. Erica Flock, Reston The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 15, 2011

Parking complaints ignore real problem –

dependence on cars What’s with all the agitation about

parking? There seems no end of controversies – downtown, hospitals, neighbourhood streets. Mention it and expect an argument – no matter what you say.

Maybe it’s time to step back and think about why it seems to matter so much. It seems a lot like smoking – I have to have it when I have to have it – suggesting that there’s an addiction problem here – not to parking, but to cars.

Unfortunately, that addiction isn’t just hurting the folks who have it. Our dependence on cars – and places to put them – is a large part of some of the most serious problems we face both here in Hamilton and elsewhere.

In Hamilton, the city is more than $2 billion behind in maintaining existing infrastructure and the majority of that is roads. We’re falling behind an extra $195 million every year. Just to stop that decline would require a 25 per cent increase in property taxes. The only ‘solution’ offered by councillors is that some other level of government (read provincial or federal taxpayers – i.e. us) should bail us out.

In Hamilton, we’ve known for nearly 15 years that air pollution is killing about 100 people a year and making life miserable for thousands with asthma, COPD and other breathing problems. It’s also a major cause of heart attacks and

because of industrial shutdowns, transportation is the single largest cause (read cars).

Why? Because we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that it’s OK to use the atmosphere as a sewer.

There’s a terrible price for that arrogance and it’s not just being paid in our health. We all know that emissions from vehicles are one of the main causes of climate change. The waste we dump out our tailpipes is building up and people around the globe are the victims. Most of them don’t get mentioned in the media, except as a statistic, but international agencies like the United Nations estimate climate change- caused deaths are well over 100,000 per year.

The United States got a taste of it this year – with at least 12 extreme weather-related events (tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires) each causing more than $1 billion in damage, according to a report issued last week by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The previous record was nine (set in 2008). Munich RE Insurance tracks natural disasters in the U.S. Last year, there were 247. Prior to 1990, the number never topped 100. In the last five years, it hasn’t been below 150.

We’ve had a smaller taste in Hamilton – two 100-year storms in 2009, 15 severe

enough to cause home and road flooding since 2005. For those directly affected, it hurt, but no one died from it. We can try to ignore it and carry on as if there isn’t a

problem – except about parking – but the reality isn’t going away. Don McLean

Stoney Creek


Dismount dead horse Re “No climate deal” (Opinion, Dec. 2):

Given the apparent failure of United Nations climate talks in Durban, South Africa, we Americans have a choice to make regarding attempts to coordinate a global effort to address climate change. We can exhaust ourselves arguing about who is to blame, or we can demonstrate leadership by shifting to renewable energy sources. Others will certainly follow.

We have long heard that renewables aren’t economically competitive with carbon-‐based fossil fuels. That is no longer the case. Renewable energy’s costs have steadily dropped and will continue to drop the more they are adopted. If not yet competitive, they will be very soon.

We could embrace our renewable energy future by enacting smart, forward-‐looking policies. We could shift subsidies from dirty energy to clean energy. We could put a fee on carbon with proceeds going to every American household, as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act, recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Lakota have a saying: If you find yourself riding a dead horse, it’s best to dismount. How long before we switch and ride abundant clean energy sources instead of the scarce, dirty and increasingly expensive energy sources that we currently ride? Ben Mates Salt Lake City

Calgary Beacon Calgary Independent online local news, Dec. 13, 2011

Shift to clean energy is where the puck is heading Call for carbon pricing system, proceeds used to develop sustainable economy By Cheryl McNamara

Earlier this month, the world convened once again to nail down a post-‐Kyoto commitment on climate change.

And once again the climate talks, held in Durban, South Africa, generated a cacophony of voices and more finger pointing that inevitably led to disappointment on one hand and relief on the other that no deal has been reached yet to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

At the crux of this struggle between committing to science-‐based reduction targets and continuing business as usual is the tension between pushing for paradigm change and holding fast to the status quo.

Change tends to scare people. People don’t like to see the world in which they grew up – its views and expectations – shift abruptly. But in order to prevent global temperatures from reaching dangerous levels – which will also trigger abrupt societal changes as a result of rising sea levels, compromised agriculture and so on –

we are asked to collectively and quickly shift our economies and behaviours.

Is it any wonder that among those contributing to the climate change conversation is a small but highly vocal group who question the science, despite the robust research, declaring global warming to be a lie, dreamt up by devious liberals to take over the world?

More conservative voices, however, are now joining the climate action chorus, including religious, military and business leaders. The Pope, in particular, has been a vocal climate action proponent, calling on negotiators in Durban “to craft a responsible and credible deal to cut greenhouse gases that takes into account the needs of the poor.” Recently Canadian representatives of 30 faith communities and organizations issued a statement calling for global action on climate change and equating climate action with public well-‐being.

The U.S. military is also taking a lead, foreseeing security threats that will come with a warming world and

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 13, 2011

The consequences of paving Red Hill

Valley Re: Flood control scheme has residents on edge (Dec. 9)

The flooding threat to the Red Hill Valley Parkway is understandable. It was built in a floodplain. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, the political decision to build the road in the valley was made long before the engineers were asked to figure out how to do it. And the city ignored the likely effects of climate change, even though Canada endorsed the Kyoto Protocol six years before construction of the parkway began.

Then lawyers were given over $3 million to prevent a federal environmental assessment that would have exposed these problems, and a secret further amount to sue the federal government for trying to help. Add to that the $4.5 million for expressway flood cleanup so far, plus the $4 million for the latest flood prevention scheme, plus

whatever the city ends up paying the affected landowners.

The sad part is that there’s little the city can do here to prevent more flooding as climate change generates more severe storms. Ironically, more expressways mean more driving and more emissions and more rapid climate change. The flooding gets worse as we replace natural areas with impervious surfaces.

And the flooding here — bad as it’s already been — is minor compared to the rapidly increasing climatic catastrophes on other parts of the planet including tens of thousands of deaths every year. The emissions we dump into the global atmosphere contribute to those disasters and deaths. Isn’t it time we woke up? Don McLean

Stoney Creek

ERROR: undefined

OFFENDING COMMAND: ��

STACK:

continued dependency on oil from hostile countries. Recognizing that clean energy development is critical to national security, the U.S. Department of Defence plans to annually spend $10 billion on renewable energy for military application by 2030. Just as the military gave civil society the Internet and GPS, so too will it help fast track innovations and market development of renewable energy technologies.

The business community too sees the writing on the wall. According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, “switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities.”

To facilitate renewable energy development, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is calling for “a broad-‐based carbon pricing scheme that is transparent and predictable.” Such a mechanism will help change behaviours, and spur innovation and the development of cleaner energy sources, products and services, according to the CCCE.

Rather than heed their advice, Foreign Minister John Baird declared that Canada will never adopt a carbon tax. Never is a long time, particularly when we are running out of it.

In its recently released World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns countries of “locking into an insecure, inefficient and high-‐carbon energy system.”

Even Ed Stelmach, Alberta’s former Premier, recognized the danger of becoming too reliant on its resources, warning that Albertans could find themselves “watching the global economic game from the sidelines – because our resource wealth made us too comfortable, and we lost the drive to achieve and perform at a critical moment.”

The critical moment is now. Wayne Gretsky famously said that the secret to his success was skating to where the puck was heading, not to where it was. With mounting calls to reduce greenhouse gases, diminishing supply from conventional oil wells, and innovation in clean energy technology, it’s clear where the puck is heading.

Canada has a choice. Either lock into an insecure high-‐carbon system, or legislate a mechanism that sends a clear market signal to nourish an industry poised to surge, bring new life back to our ailing manufacturing sector, create an abundance of quality jobs, and create healthier communities.

Change is difficult. But not when it generates great benefits. By putting a price on carbon that increases annually and giving the proceeds back to citizens to stimulate the economy we can develop a sustainable society for our kids and grandkids. Isn’t that what true conservatism is all about? Cheryl McNamara is the Communications Officer for the Organization Citizens Climate Lobby


Tax use of fossil fuels I appreciate former Sen. Bob

Bennett for his recent appeal to good sense ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). What would really make sense would be to take a whole-‐systems, long-‐term view of the effects of burning fossil fuels to provide our energy.

Our current combustion of fuels brings with it the cumulative costs of treating respiratory and other diseases, waging war to secure energy resources, smog, acid rain, and species extinction — not to mention the astronomical costs of climate disasters.

If even a portion of these is taken into account, then it most definitely makes sense to institute policies to promote a shift to clean, renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. A fee on carbon combined with a dividend of 100 percent of the revenues back to households (as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act — HR3242) would be a good start in having real costs reflected in our energy equation.

It makes a lot of sense to drive our economy to more livable and resilient outcomes. Ben J. Mates Salt Lake City

COMPASS: Other points of view, DEC. 8, 2011

A carbon fee could make a big difference By JIM THRALL

When it comes to climate change, we're literally skating on thin ice here in the north, and unless we start reducing emissions of heat-‐trapping gases within five years, catastrophic consequences will be unavoidable.

That was the warning from the International Energy Agency prior to the opening of the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa. It's a warning that seems to fall on deaf ears among politicians in America. As a result, U.S. negotiators arrived empty-‐handed at this year's conference, with no credible plan of action to reduce the threat of climate change.

This isn't great news. Here in Alaska, the changes taking place in our climate are hard to miss.

Already, feedback loops are beginning to hasten the process. Arctic waters, heating up faster than expected, decrease ice cover and reduce reflection of solar radiation to outer space, further increasing heat absorption. Thawing permafrost releases massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse gases we release by burning fossil fuels.

These tipping points were predicted by climate scientists years ago. Yet, even as they occur, the coal and oil industries continue to cast doubt on the serious nature of the problem -‐-‐ just as the tobacco industry cast doubt on the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

If this weren't bad enough, another serious tipping point approaches as the ocean absorbs more, and more CO2 slowly becoming more acidic. As pH drops in the waters of Kachemak Bay, eventually we'll reach the point where crabs cannot easily maintain their exoskeletons. Pterpods, a major food for salmon, will begin to disappear. It isn't clear how quickly this will happen, but it is beyond foolish to hope that without action on our part it will not occur.

Fortunately there is action we can take to avoid the worst-‐case scenario that looms in our future: Put a fee on carbon.

Economists agree that the best way to change harmful behavior is by increasing the cost. First, a fee on carbon will recognize the true cost of our overuse of this energy source (the many external environmental and social costs that have long gone unaccounted for). Second, this fee will encourage massive investment in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency, providing jobs to thousands of people, stimulating our moribund economy and putting us back in the competition for dominance of the world's energy sector, a race we are currently ceding to China and Germany. Finally, by rebating most of the fee to American households, the effect of the temporary increase in energy prices will be largely mitigated.

The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), recently introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., does exactly what is described above. It also uses part of the fee to reduce the deficit, addressing

another critical issue that Congress is currently struggling with, albeit with limited success.

Given the real threats we face if CO2 emissions are not controlled -‐-‐ floods, droughts, food shortages, more severe storms, rising sea levels, decreased ocean productivity -‐-‐ we need to demand that Congress act. As members of the Senate Oceans Caucus Committee Sens. Murkowski and Begich have important roles to play in addressing ocean acidification. In addition, Sen. Murkowski is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Begich sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Support of the

Save Our Climate Act or other legislation to place a fee on carbon is the best way to address what is becoming a grave threat to Alaska's all important marine resources.

If you like to catch, eat or sell seafood or live a subsistence lifestyle, demand that they step up to the plate.

Oh, and by the way, this doesn't mean Alaska won't continue to produce oil and gas for the domestic market. In fact, it is likely that one thing that a fee on carbon will do is encourage more production of natural gas.

Jim Thrall is the Anchorage leader of Citizens Climate Lobby.


Initiate carbon tax I applaud former Sen. Bob Bennett

for his sensible article on approaching climate change ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). Yes, reducing our carbon footprint is both possible and it makes good economic sense. Bennett also points out that developing nations continue to increase their greenhouse gases even as the U.S. emissions have decreased.

How can the U.S., which has created more of the excess greenhouse gases than any other nation, influence these nations to reduce their use of carbon dioxide-‐producing fuels?

The U.S. should build on the success that Bennett notes by putting

a price on carbon and returning the proceeds to the American people. Such a proposal is the basis of the Save our Climate Act (HR3242), which was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would further stimulate our move to energy efficiency and use of renewable energy and provide a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax.

As Bennett affirms, cap and trade has not worked. Let's try a new legislative approach that makes sense. David S. Folland Sandy

Guest blog posted on December 5, 2011

Saving N.E. seasons (and Earth’s climate) starts in Durban By Gary Rucinski, Founder, Citizens Climate Lobby Boston Chapter

I was born in New Jersey but, when it comes to the weather, I am New England Yankee through and through.

After my family moved to Massachusetts, my grandfather taught me how to garden. My childhood was defined by the cycle of planting in spring, watering and weeding in summer, and harvesting in fall. I remember the sweetness of homegrown strawberries, the snap of fresh beans, and the taste of my grandmother’s green tomato relish made with the last pickings from the vine. To this day, I feel the appreciation that gardening instilled in me for the New England seasons.

Sadly, we no longer have the seasons I grew up with. As scientists predicted, our climate has changed. Seasons in New England today are more like those of northern New Jersey in the early sixties. By late this century, if we don’t act, New England seasons will be like those of present day South Carolina. Should we live so long, my wife will rejoice at this change, but I will mourn the loss of the seasons of my childhood.

If the New England seasons were the only potential loss due to climate change, there might be little urgency to act. But this year, the U.S. experienced the bitter taste of what climate change will bring. We’ve seen devastating fires in drought-stricken Texas; tornadoes and a freak October snowstorm that dumped 30” of snow in western Massachusetts; and massive floods along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Extreme weather events overall caused $50B in damages in 2011.

As the reality of climate change has been sinking in, the case advanced by climate change deniers has been collapsing. Richard Mueller, a former skeptic, announced results confirming the scientific consensus on global

warming. Simultaneously, a clear winner was also emerging as the best policy option for addressing climate change.

The consensus policy approach is to put a tax on the carbon in fossil fuels. Called a carbon tax, it is viewed in countries around the globe and by economists across the ideological spectrum as the most effective way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels that cause climate change. This year Australia passed a carbon tax that will raise the price of energy but cut income taxes by an equivalent amount. British Columbia has been operating with a similar tax for four years. South Africa’s National Treasury concluded, “Carbon taxes afford firms the flexibility to undertake emissions reductions according to their specific processes and provide the long-term price certainty which is essential for investment decisions.”

In the U.S., Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins submitted the CLEAR Act in the last Congress. This act proposed auctioning carbon shares that gradually increase in price. Seventy five percent of auction proceeds would have been returned directly to households. In October, Representative Pete Stark and eight cosponsors submitted theSave Our Climate Act. This bill would put a gradually increasing tax on carbon. It would return most proceeds to households and use a portion to reduce the national debt.

It may seem nonsensical to tax carbon on the one hand and refund nearly the same amount to consumers. We have seen, however, that Americans change their habits when energy gets more expensive. Also, private investment in the clean tech and alternative energy sectors increases when costs for energy rise.

The guarantee of a gradually increasing carbon tax will give consumers and businesses the predictability they need to justify the investments that will jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy. Refunds will allow all Americans to purchase the energy they need during the transition.

With no doubt remaining on the science, the daily news reminding us of damages to come, and an emerging global consensus on the most effective policy proposal, now is the time to act. The current international conference on climate change, COP17, in Durban, South Africa, presents an opportunity to do so. The Obama Administration should go to COP17 and signal its support for a U.S. carbon tax, then come home and work to pass one in the current Congress. Doing so will help preserve more than just the New England seasons I have come to love. For more information on Citizens Climate Lobby, go to www.citizensclimatelobby.org.


CLIMATE CHANGE

Seattle of the Midwest Thank you for the Nov. 26 front-‐

page article on Milwaukee's six-‐decade wet streak. I read a lot about climate change, but I did not realize global warming had already led us into "local wetting." It's strange to think of Milwaukee becoming the Seattle of the Great Lakes.

What really worries me is how we will grow enough food for the world's 7 billion-‐plus people with places like here getting more rain but others getting less or at the wrong times. The drought in Texas this summer was historic, and last year Russia halted grain exports due to dry weather. Pakistan and Australia have had massive flooding recently. With carbon emissions rising faster than scientists' worst-‐case scenarios, I fear

we are on track to see millions of people suffering from natural disasters, famine and the civil chaos they lead to.

It does not have be this way. A low but rising tax on carbon, fully refunded to each American, would efficiently wean our economy off fossil fuels. Renewable energy is labor intensive, so a "fee and dividend" plan like this would create more jobs than it cost. Compared to floods, food shortages and resource wars, it is a bargain. And if we get on it soon enough, we may even preserve the character-‐building winters we in Milwaukee so love to complain about. Michael Arney Wauwatosa


Climate change A bouquet to the U-‐T for publishing

Marshall Saunders’ very informative article about climate change (“Climate debate in search of solutions,” Opinion, Nov. 25) and the front-‐page story Nov. 21 on the impacts of climate change in California.

A brick to the U-‐T for publishing the letter to the editor (Nov. 28) regarding CO2 and the fact that it is required for life. Of course CO2 is required for life. In biology, one finds that many things

required in small quantities can be poisonous in large doses.

While I realize we all have the right to our opinion in this country, I look for a challenging and intellectually engaging debate when I read the letters to the editor. The U-‐T receives many letters and must make a choice about what to print. With letters like this, I’m wondering if I might soon find one emphatically stating the world is flat.

– Judy Berlfein, Encinitas

EDITORIAL, NOV. 28, 2011

Climate crisis U.S. culpable for warming planet

Of all the failures of American government over the past decade, the one that is likely to haunt future generations most is the failure to act decisively to lessen the effects of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Former President George W. Bush not only failed to act to limit the increasing production of CO2 but vehemently denied U.S. culpability in the rising global temperatures. His ignorance has been compounded by the ineffective, even lukewarm, efforts of the Barack Obama administration and the continued denial and refusal of Congress to acknowledge the looming crisis. President Obama’s proposed caps on carbon emissions by American industry went nowhere, and now it seems, in the face of their intransigence, he has given up trying to persuade legislators to do anything.

The United States, more than any nation on Earth, will be held accountable, and should be, for what scientists now say are the inescapable consequences of putting fossil-‐fuel industry interests above the interests of the planet’s inhabitants. The U.S. and China are the primary contributors. While emerging nations India and China are not held to the goals of the Kyoto agreement of 1997, the United States has simply failed to use the technology available to reduce emissions. Europe, Russia and Japan, meanwhile, have nearly met the goals set

by the pact. The U.S. Senate never ratified it.

Scientists say now, after the record-‐setting temperature increases of 2010 when the global carbon dioxide emissions increased by the highest one-‐year amount ever, we may have gone beyond the point when we can help ourselves. And the United States is leading the way to global catastrophe.

The growth in warming has accelerated every decade, well beyond what scientists predicted two decades ago. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since 1990 the heat-‐trapping force from all the major greenhouse gases has increased by 29 percent.

We have, perhaps, already reached the “tipping point,” when the melting of the Earth’s ice sheets is irreversible. If that is true, sea levels will rise by several feet, inundating coastal nations, many of them in some of the world’s poorest places. Refugees from those places will escape to higher-‐ground nations, creating societal problems the world has not yet seen. Extreme weather events are already beginning and will bring severe floods, droughts and storms.

World leaders will meet this week in South Africa to once again try to formulate plans to cut emissions and lessen the coming crisis. The United States has an obligation to, at least, admit it has a role to play.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 26, 2011

Climate change debate needs to continue In response to “Studies show climate

change’s impact on CA” (SignOnSanDiego.com, Nov. 20): It’s no surprise that these recent studies have found increasing climate change impacts on California. We have been hearing for years that our snow will melt earlier and cause flooding, our crops will be more stressed and we will see more extreme fires and droughts.

It was, however, particularly disappointing to see the use of an inflammatory and inaccurate quote from James Taylor of the Heartland Institute in an attempt to “show the other side.” The Heartland Institute is famous for defending tobacco companies and being funded by oil companies. Doesn’t this seem like a poor choice for an informed opinion?

California faces big challenges with climate change, the largest of which weren’t discussed in this article. We deserve to have a constant informed discussion about how to deal with them rather than bickering from private interest groups like the Heartland Institute. Thanks for covering this important issue, but please do a better job with your sources. – Cameron Coates, La Jolla

Climate change is not “mad science.” Ninety-‐seven percent of climate scientists (not meteorologists, geologists or physicists) agree it’s happening and caused by man. If it’s good enough that 4 out of 5 (80 percent) dentists recommend a particular type of mouthwash, why isn’t

4.85 out of 5 (97 percent) climate scientists good enough?

With Richard Muller, the vociferous climate denialist physicist funded by the Koch brothers, recently sharing results of his own two-‐year investigation finding that climate change is real, perhaps the number is creeping even higher. Are those 97 percent of climate scientists really doing the mad science, or is it the 3 percent who still deny climate change is real and man-‐made? – Daniel Richter, La Jolla

With the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, California is attempting to decrease greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat and warm the planet. However, we need national action if we are to prevent climate change. Rep. Pete Stark (D-‐Calif.) has introduced House Resolution 3242, the Save Our Climate Act. This bill would put a steadily increasing fee on fossil fuels and return much of the money to the American people in the form of a dividend. By putting a predictable price on carbon, this legislation would level the playing field for alternative energy producers. Thus, venture capitalists and private entrepreneurs would compete to develop new technologies.

As George W. Bush said, we are addicted to fossil fuels. There is nothing good about this addiction. Californians can adapt to a changing climate, but many parts of the world cannot. America must lead the way to a clean energy economy. Congress should pass the Save Our Climate Act. – Jean Seager, Coronado

NOV. 26, 2011

Climate debate in search of solutions By Marshall Saunders

Now that climate science skeptic Richard Muller has discovered – surprise! – that global warming is real, perhaps the debate on climate change can now shift to what we’re going to do about it.

Of course, the “debate” about the reality of climate change has been bogus, ginned up by the coal and oil interests looking to maintain their sky-‐high profit margins. Taking a page out of the tobacco industry’s playbook, the fossil fuel lobby hired “experts” with dubious credentials to make people think that the science on climate change was unsettled. What most of the public doesn’t know is that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the earth is warming, primarily from human influence. In other words, when it comes to climate change, our failure to reduce greenhouse gases is equivalent to playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver.

Of the skeptics who were out there, though, UC Berkeley physicist Muller’s harsh critique of the methods and processes used in climate studies was not easily dismissed. He conducted his own two-‐year study, partially funded by climate denier Charles M. Koch’s foundation. Despite the Koch backing, Muller confirmed the work of previous studies: It’s getting hotter on planet Earth.

Other reports indicate we’re running short on time to avert the worst consequences of this warming.

A draft summary of an upcoming report by the International Protocol on Climate Change links climate change and the extreme weather – droughts, floods, fires and heat waves – besetting the U.S. and the rest of the world. These disasters will only become more frequent and severe in coming years unless we cut our output of carbon dioxide. How long will it be before these catastrophes outpace our ability to recover from them?

Bad news on the lowering CO2 front, though: The U.S. Energy Department just reported that emissions jumped by the highest rate ever in 2010, and that’s in the middle of an economic recession. This increase is beyond the worst-‐case scenarios that climate scientists anticipated when calculating how quickly the Earth would heat up.

What to do about it? Step one, it seems, is to put a price on

carbon dioxide – the byproduct of burning fossil fuels – that will eventually wean our nation off coal, oil and gas. With a clear price signal that clean energy will be more profitable than dirty energy, massive amounts of investment money will move toward wind, solar and other renewable technologies. The faster we make this transition, the quicker we will reduce our CO2 emissions.

Legislation to do this, the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), was recently introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Fremont. It places a $10 tax on each ton of CO2 a fuel will emit when burned, increasing by $10 each year until U.S. CO2 emissions

have fallen to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Because it will increase energy costs initially, Stark’s bill also returns most of the revenue from the carbon tax to individuals in the form of an annual payment. In 10 years, that annual payment is expected to be $1,170. At that time, too, Stark’s bill is expected to have paid down $490 billion of the national debt, as the legislation devotes a portion of revenue for deficit reduction.

What about American businesses? Won’t they face unfair competition from foreign firms that don’t have to pay costs associated with the carbon tax?

Yes, and that’s why the Save Our Climate Act calls for border adjustments, equivalent tariffs on imported goods from nations that don’t have similar carbon

pricing. These tariffs create a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. Why give money to the U.S. Treasury when they can keep that revenue in their own country?

As delegates prepare to gather in South Africa later this month for a meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world looks toward Washington for some sign of a breakthrough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Giving serious consideration to Stark’s Save Our Climate Act would restore hope that humanity will come to its senses before it’s too late.

Saunders is president of San Diego-based Citizens Climate Lobby.


Kudos to Huntsman on climate change I was happy to see columnist Steve

Chapman's recent endorsement of Jon Huntsman as the best Republican running for president. Huntsman stands out as the only candidate who acknowledges that global warming is taking place.

With carbon emissions growing faster in 2010 than even the worst case scenario outlined by climate scientists, the problem of climate change needs to be faced and addressed now.

Although Republicans in Congress refuse to move ahead on climate legislation, many conservatives outside of Congress recognize that a fee on carbon emissions paid by fossil fuel companies is the best way to lower our carbon emissions.

When the fee is combined with a full rebate of the revenues to the

American people, the system is revenue neutral and does not add to government bureaucracy. It also encourages entrepreneurs to find ways to meet the resulting new demand for efficiency and renewable energy. The resulting growth of the green economy will not only slow global warming but also bring new jobs and life to our economy.

Legislation along these lines has been introduced in the U.S. House in the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). Climate change threatens us all, regardless of political party. Everyone should insist that politicians make solving this problem one of their highest priorities. I hope Huntsman moves up in the polls. — Madeleine Para, Madison, member, Citizens Climate Lobby

NOVEMBER 25, 2011 ENVIRONMENT

Saving the world — an article of eco-faith For some Christians, it’s not a matter of politics By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune

Would Jesus have gorged himself this Thanksgiving on turkeys laced with sodium, kept the stove on all day, served imported pears or filled his garbage with plastic bags?

Christian environmentalists don’t think so and, for them, it’s more a matter of faith than politics.

The Earth is holy, these believers say, and God gave humanity the responsibility to protect and care for it. If we truly recognized the debt we owe to Mother Nature, we would stop overeating, overconsuming and overextending the world’s resources.

“We don’t think about the ethical implications of what we eat and what we buy,” says Mormon environmental activist and Brigham Young University humanities professor George Handley. “LDS scriptures are replete with passages about the danger of ‘wasting flesh’ and exploiting nature, as well as the importance of distributing resources equitably.”

And it’s not just a Mormon problem, he says. “It affects the whole developed world.”

Indeed, scores of religious believers in Utah, across the country and throughout the world share Handley’s concerns, building their cases on religious texts, moral reasoning and church teachings.

Dozens of congregations are members of Utah Interfaith Power & Light, whose mission is to “seek to be faithful stewards of creation by addressing global climate change through the promotion of energy conservation and efficiency and a shift toward renewable energy.”

Protecting the environment is an issue that every person — regardless of political party, religion, social standing or economic background — should care about, Handley says, but it has become entangled in politics.

These religious activists hope to transcend that wrangling, he adds, and wrap the conversation in the language of stewardship.

It is, he argues, a spiritual mandate.

Evolving awareness While teaching for three years at

Northern Arizona University in the mid-‐

"I realized global warming was happening and I needed to do something about it," said Dave Folland, a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.

1990s, Handley was in a department that merged environmental education with religious studies. For the first time, he realized that LDS theology might enhance the discussion.

“Mormons don’t always think carefully enough about the church’s unique narrative about ‘the creation,’ where the world was created out of unorganized matter and not out of nothing,” Handley says. “It’s hard to reconcile creation out of nothing with what we know about evolution. Our [LDS] notion of creation is more compatible with environmental ethics, too.”

In addition, LDS theology posits that the world was created spiritually before materially and that plants and animals have “living souls,” he says. “That is one of the church’s more beautiful doctrines and should be a basis for the ethical treatment of animals and the Earth.”

The Utah-‐based faith’s health code, known as the Word of Wisdom, entreats Mormons to eat fruit “in [their] season,” and that “flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air ... [should] be used sparingly ... only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

LDS scriptures also say that every species should continue to “multiply and replenish” indefinitely, says Handley, author of Home Waters: A Year of Recompenses on the Provo River and an adviser to BYU’s EcoResponse club. “Mormons believe that every species and has a right to enjoy posterity.”

Yet many conservative Latter-‐day Saints put environmental stewardship at odds with economic realities.

“Those are false choices,” Handley says. “One of the easiest ways to ignite religion around environment is to make it about people and not just about plants and animals. What hurts the animals hurts people.”

He sees optimistic signs in the LDS Church’s recent efforts to make its meetinghouses more eco-‐friendly.

“There is something very doctrinally sound when we talk about conservation of resources,” LDS Presiding Bishop H. David Burton said last year while touting a “green” stake center in Farmington that boasts solar panels, xeriscaped landscaping and designated parking for electric cars. “This is a teaching moment. This aspect of our culture has become a vital part of our DNA.”

Handley hopes such eco-‐zeal becomes even more ingrained in Mormons — to the extent that the “provident living” refrain embraces environmental ethics as well.

A clear connection Growing up amid Austria’s strong

Catholic community, Margret Posch was a natural-‐born environmentalist.

“Many churches there featured children’s drawings of other young people suffering in a drought,” Posch recalls. “There was always this [implicit] message about how our actions affected the living conditions of other human beings.”

About eight years ago, Posch, with her husband and two sons, toured the United States and chose to settle in Utah because of its stunning landscapes — red-‐rock splendor, Wasatch majesty, canyon coolness, desert delights.

After settling in, she was surprised to discover widespread resistance to conversations about the environment. Friends and neighbors seemed to see it as a political issue, rather than a religious or moral one, she says. They were uncomfortable even discussing the topic.

She wondered if the link she saw between nature and humans was unique to Austria, but soon realized that it permeated Catholic teachings everywhere. Even the pope warned about the rising threat of global warming.

Two years ago, Posch started a “Going Green Ministry” within her Draper parish, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church. She organized Taizé prayer services to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth

Day, handed out small vegetable plants to encourage gardening, discussed how to limit energy use and organized an art contest. Next month, the group will sponsor a Christmas-‐card-‐making event, using recycled materials.

“I happen to be Catholic, and this is an expression of my faith ,” Posch says. “But it’s just as much about the ethical care of human beings.”

That, she says, is not bound by any faith.

Waking up David Folland, a retired Salt Lake City

pediatrician, spent his youth in Utah and California, immersed in nature’s glories.

But it wasn’t until Folland attended a lecture by a National Geographic photographer at Westminster College a few years ago that he grasped the urgency of climate change.

After showing stunning shots of the arctic, photographer Paul Nicklen told the crowd that “if current trends continue, all the wildlife you see here tonight will disappear.”

Folland was incensed. “I realized that global warming was

happening,” he says, “and I needed to do something about it.”

Folland, who says he respects spirituality but is not associated with any faith, became an overnight activist. He joined Utah Interfaith Power & Light, has written about the issue and has tried to raise awareness at every opportunity.

He recently traveled with the Citizens Climate Lobby to Washington, D.C., to meet with Utah’s congressional delegation about climate change. The delegation — all Mormons — did not seem moved by any of the arguments or literature, Folland recalls. That is, until the activists mentioned the Vatican’s recent statement calling on “all people

and nations to recognize the serious and potentially reversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants … If we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.”

Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians, has become known as “the Green Patriarch” because of his efforts to preserve the planet.

“To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin,” the gray-‐haired patriarch said in a film about the environment. “For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation, to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air and its life — all of these are sins.”

A few years ago, some Christians published The Green Bible, with verses and passages that “speak to God’s care for creation highlighted in green.”

Such religious efforts on the Earth’s behalf are growing and spreading, says Susan Soleil, director of Utah Interfaith Power & Light.

“Every faith has something within its holy scriptures [a mandate] about caring for God’s creation,” she says. “And every religion focuses on caring for the less fortunate ... indigenous people, the poor, the elderly, the sick, the children. We need to be kinder to the planet so it doesn’t destroy the places where they are living.”

After all, the Psalmist tells us that the Earth and its fullness are the Lord’s. Jesus knew that, too. [email protected]

© 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune


Huntsman believes in global warming I was happy to see Steve Chapman's

piece about Jon Huntsman potentially being the best pick for the Republican presidential nomination on Sunday's editorial page ("Question: Why not Jon Huntsman? Opinion, Nov. 20). Huntsman stands out as the only Republican presidential candidate who acknowledges that global warming is taking place. With carbon emissions growing faster in 2010 than even the worst case scenario outlined by climate scientists, the problem of climate change needs to be faced and addressed as rapidly as possible.

Despite the loud cries of climate change deniers, addressing climate change is a priority for many Americans. A recent survey conducted by Yale researcher Anthony Leiserowitz found that 70 percent of Americans, including 44 percent of Republicans, felt global warming should be a very high or moderate priority for the president and Congress.

Although Republicans in Congress currently refuse to move ahead on climate legislation, many conservatives outside of Congress are recognizing that a fee on

carbon emissions paid by fossil fuel companies is the best way to quickly lower our carbon emissions. When the fee is combined with a full rebate of the revenues to the American people, the system is revenue neutral, does not add to government bureaucracy and encourages entrepreneurs to find ways to meet the resulting new demand for efficiency and renewable energy.

The resulting growth of the green economy will not only slow global warming but also bring new jobs and life to our economy. Legislation along these lines has been introduced in the U.S. House -‐-‐ the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). The Yale study found that 65 percent of those surveyed supported a revenue neutral carbon tax that would reduce federal income taxes, help create jobs and decrease pollution. 51 percent of Republicans supported the idea.

Climate change threatens us all, regardless of political party. Huntsman is smart to respect the science on global warming. I hope that he moves up in the polls. -- Madeleine Para, Madison, Wis.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 23, 2011

There’s no need to subsidize energy

Thank you for “Studies gauge how climate change impacts Californians” (Nov. 21). The story included the phrase, “not everyone believes” that climate change is tied to man-‐made CO² emissions. Science and belief are distinct domains and should be treated differently. The process by which science is worked out, “peer review,” may not be perfect but it is reliable. That is why when our children were sick we were confident that antibiotics would work and when we go to the airport we are not wondering if this is one of the planes that actually flies.

Among scientists, there is consensus. If you speak with any of them – locally, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; nationally, The American Academy of Science; and internationally, The

Pontifical Academy of Sciences – you will hear that we have an urgent man-‐made problem.

The good news is California scientists have created a plan to transition all of our energy needs to wind, solar and geothermal within 20 years. The fastest way to get there is to put a predictable, steadily rising cost on all fossil fuels and send all the revenue back to American households to shield them from rising energy costs while we make the transition to renewable energy. We do not need to subsidize energy; given an effective price signal, the best entrepreneurs in the world will create a new gold rush for clean technologies. — Mark Reynolds, San Diego

NOV. 22, 2011

The Christianity-climate change connection By Elli Sparks

Can you believe it? A south Texas evangelical Christian minister is in bed with a climate scientist. Literally, they are in bed together. He's the minister, and she's the scientist. They are married. Their sacred bond is helping Christians in the Lubbock Bible Church on the South Plains of Texas wrestle with the spiritual and political issues of climate change.

Climate change has hit south Texas harder than other parts of the U.S., with devastating droughts and still-‐smoldering forest fires. Once the fires die and the drought continues, south Texas will experience "desertification."

Let's get back to the kumbaya-‐singing, hand-‐holding couple who spiritually guide parishioners through the maze of science and toward the glory of God.

Andrew Farley, a linguistics professor and lead teaching pastor, is married to Katharine Hayhoe, research professor in geosciences at Texas Tech University. Together they wrote a book, "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-‐Based Decisions." Questions they hear from their flock are these:

Isn't God in control? Won't it all work out?

How do we know this is not a natural cycle?

Farley reminds them, "You reap what you sow." God doesn't preserve us from poor lifestyle choices. Eat junk food, and you get fat. Pour warming gases into the air, and the planet heats up. God calls that free will, and it's actually a gift.

God doesn't preserve us from other people's poor choices, either. Bad things happen to good people. Drunken drivers can kill others, even children. Poor people without cars and electricity will feel the wrath of climate change even though they didn't pollute.

Hayhoe simply says this: The planet is warming, and it doesn't look like a natural cycle. Things are getting too hot, too fast. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, we've been pumping warming gases into the air. You can measure those gases out of the tailpipe of any car or smokestack of any factory. We know how much CO {-‐2} we've created. Half of our exhaust is floating in the air. The ocean has sequestered the other half, which is why the coral reefs are dying.

This couple disagree on the age of the Earth. Farley looks to the Bible. Hayhoe sticks with science. As couples in strong marriages do, they have agreed to disagree. They want to focus on the real issue: using God's gift of free will to

change the way we produce energy and fuel vehicles.

How do we do that? Step one: Put a price on carbon

dioxide to wean us off coal, oil and gas. Send a price signal to inspire massive amounts of investment money in wind, solar and other renewable technologies. The faster we make this transition, the quicker we will reduce our CO {-‐2} emissions. That's free will.

The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242) would speed that transition. It places a $10 tax on each ton of CO {-‐2} a fuel will emit when burned, increasing by $10 each year until U.S. CO {-‐2} emissions have fallen to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Because it will increase energy costs, this bill returns most of the revenue from the carbon tax to individuals in the form of an annual payment. In 10 years, that annual payment is expected to be $1,170. At that time, too, this bill is expected to have paid down $490 billion of the national debt, as the legislation devotes a portion of revenue for deficit reduction.

We can simultaneously protect American businesses and inspire other countries to change. The Save Our Climate Act calls for border adjustments, equivalent tariffs on imported goods from nations that don't have similar carbon pricing. These tariffs create a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. Why give money to the U.S. Treasury when they can keep that revenue in their own country?

Perhaps more than most issues, climate change is a spiritual challenge with a political solution that industry must implement. We will need elected leaders and captains of industry to ground themselves spiritually. They will need to act from a place of love, not fear. Free will, I believe, only works when it comes from a place of love. I'm guessing God would say that, too.

Elli Sparks is a volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby. Contact her at (804) 475-6775 or [email protected].


Re: New route planned for Keystone pipeline One of the Keystone protesters who got

himself arrested at the White House was Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist. The Canadian government and Keystone supporters ignore the greenhouse gas problem attached to the pipeline. Instead they point to the badly-needed jobs the pipeline will create, despite the fact that energy retrofits and clean energy development create more jobs than fossil fuel.

The International Energy Agency warns of locking into a high carbon infrastructure. Hansen warns that further development of the tar sands will mean game over for the climate. As long as people recognize the opportunities of clean energy and the danger of fossil fuels for their children, the Keystone protest is far from over.

Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

THU NOV 17, 2011 AT 09:25 AM PST

Becoming a Soldier for the Carbon Tax byenviro writerFollow

It's rather embarrassing to admit this, but up until a week ago, I knew precious little about climate/emissions legislation, either in the US or abroad. I could mumble something about the US's failure to pass a climate bill last year but couldn't tell you the name of it or what it was about or who co-sponsored it. "Cap and Trade"? Yeah, I'd heard of it, but ask me to explain what it does? (admittedly, Cap and Trade schemes are rather confusing). I knew the EU had passed something, but that's because they're Europe, right? And what's with Australia? What did their "carbon price" (aka "carbon tax", aka "carbon fee") decision mean?

You can't live in the DC Metro area for long before some wonkiness starts to rub off, however. I still have a lot to learn, but this week has been my crash course in climate law. I want to learn this stuff because I'm convinced that passing federal legislation will give us the best ROI, as they say - forcing all carbon polluters to fall in line. I'm happy to get arrested in front of the White House again, but fighting individual projects can only take you so far.

There's one group that's devoted itself to getting climate legislation (specifically "Fee and Dividend" - a carbon tax scheme) back on the table: Citizens Climate Lobby. Last night I met with Nils Petermann who's in the midst of setting up a DC chapter of the organization. What is Fee and Dividend, you might ask?

Simply, the plan would raise taxes on carbon polluters based on the emissions they produce ("fee") and send that revenue to taxpayers as a check ("dividend"). There are other legislative frameworks out there, from a Fee and Deficit Reduction plan to Cap and Trade and Cap and Dividend, but F&D's the plan that James Hansen and other climate scientists are putting their weight behind, largely because the public is the primary beneficiary and emitters are rewarded for reducing, rather than offsetting, CO2.

In theory, Republicans should be supportive of a carbon tax - and in fact, some notable conservative economists do support it, albeit one that replaces the dividend portion of the plan with lower income taxes (a "Tax Shift" plan, if you will): Kevin Hassett at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Gregory Mankiw, economic advisor to Mitt Romney. Hell, even American Petroleum Institute members have voiced support for a carbon tax. Unfortunately, according to Petermann, such sensible conservative think tank-iness doesn't translate well to a world of conservative politics still beholden to "drill baby, drill" sentiment.

It's necessary to talk about Republican perspectives on taxing carbon because legislation simply won't get passed without some support from their side. At least not in today's political climate. "It's important for

Republicans to take ownership of this issue," said Petermann.

Just last week, Australia passed its own carbon tax legislation despite some fierce and dramatic political opposition. The bill isn't perfect from an environmental standpoint and some conservative leaders are threatening to repeal the plan, but it's a big step in the right direction for one of the world's highest per capita carbon emitters.

Australia's political landscape is different than the US, of course (their Green Party has representatives at the federal and state levels), but I think Australia's passage of a carbon price holds some lessons for the US. I'm especially interested in the strategies that grassroots organizations like GetUp and Say Yes used to garner support for the legislation. How did these groups push through heavy opposition not unlike what we face in the US?

In terms of a legislative model for the US, Petermann is more apt to look to British Columbia than Australia. The "California of Canada" started enforcing its own "revenue-neutral" carbon tax in 2008 and appears to be changing industry behavior and

gaining public supportthree years later. In the meantime, our own California is taking the Cap and Trade routethrough the AB32 law, passed back in 2006.

As the euphoria of Obama's announcement on delaying the Keystone XL started wearing off, Bill McKibben's 350.org sent out a survey asking their engaged followers to suggest new movements to get behind. About 75 suggestions were made (as of this writing) and right behind #1 (fracking) was removing oil subsidies and passing Fee and Dividend. Now the trick will be to turn "carbon price" into a positive household term among the American public and fence-sitters in Congress.

If you'd like to join the movement to pass a carbon tax, check out the Citizens Climate Lobbywebsite. They hold regular conference calls to let people know what they're about, and an annual conference. They are also have chapters around the country. Join CCL and you'll likely be supporting a cause that has the best chance of making an impact on the US's outsized carbon monster.

Erica Flock blogs on global environmental issues here, where this post was originally published.

EDITORIAL, NOV. 14, 2011

Tax carbon to slow climate change A few weeks ago, after conducting a

multi-‐year study funded in fair measure by the ultra-‐conservative billionaire Koch brothers, University of California professor Richard Muller, one of the more credible skeptics of global warming, announced his findings. The great majority of scientists who claimed that the world's climate was warming at a fair clip, Muller said, are right.

Muller's findings produced a gamut of responses. In climate skeptic circles, he had committed apostasy. In the broader scientific community the reaction was essentially, "What took you so long? Didn't you notice that the glaciers are disappearing, permafrost melting, sea level rising and polar bears drowning?"

Last month, nine Democrats in the U.S. House decided to swim upstream through the sewage that is Washington politics to introduce the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that would impose, at its onset, a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Their goal is to reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In the current political climate, for such a bill to stand a chance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's ice cream cone would have to melt all over his hand before he could raise it to his mouth. But the act's proponents shouldn't give up. With a presidential race under way and major contenders like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney campaigning on "drill, baby, drill" platforms, it's the perfect time to offer an alternative vision of America's energy future.

The climate act, whose chief sponsor is California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, would raise a whopping $2.6 trillion over the next decade, most of which would be rebated to

energy users who would pay more for power that was produced with less harm to the environment. The rest of the money would go toward deficit reduction, spending that will reduce the tax burden on future generations. To prevent the tax from imposing an unfair disadvantage on American companies, the bill wisely calls for the carbon tax to be applied in tariff form to imported goods.

A carbon tax, compared to cap-‐and-‐trade systems like the regional compact that New Hampshire participates in, is easy to administrate. It requires minimal bureaucracy, is less easy to game and is a more direct means of reducing emissions. Emit more carbon dioxide and pay more in taxes; switch to a cleaner form of power, pay less.

The climate is warming and would continue to heat up if all carbon emissions were curtailed tomorrow. The question is how hot will it get and how soon. The nation, indeed the world, is engaged in a race between the technology required to produce energy without fueling climate change and the technology required to extract fossil fuels long thought too expensive to recover.

At the moment fossil fuel recovery technology is winning. Vast supplies of natural gas are being tapped, deep-‐water oil fields developed and Canada's vast supply of oil locked in tar sands extracted. The profits from the development of those energy resources will go to investors, but the added harm from global warming will be paid by everyone. A tax on carbon would recognize that harm, raise money to mitigate it, and make alternative forms of energy more competitive economically. It's a tax that's long overdue.

NOV. 6, 2011

Joe Orso: A solution to climate change Some people worry about climate

change. Some people deny it. Madeleine Para cut her teaching job to half-‐time so she could volunteer the other half trying to stop it.

Two Christmases ago, Para found “Storms of My Grandchildren,” a book by respected climate scientist James Hansen, on her mother’s coffee table. Driving home from Chicago to Madison, she and her husband talked about the book, and their lives changed.

“We looked at each other and said, ‘If this is true then we can’t just keep leading our lives the way we have been,’” Para said. “That was the point I decided I had to become a climate activist.”

Para will speak at 7 p.m. on Tuesday at Western Technical College in Viroqua, 220 S. Main St., about the organization that animates much of her climate work.

Citizens Climate Lobby is a 3-‐year-‐old organization working to empower citizens and get Congress to pass legislation that would foster a stable climate.

For those whose eyes just glazed over, for those who have given up on Congress’s ability to accomplish anything meaningful, please keep reading.

Mark Reynolds, executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby, said they learned from other successful lobbyists that “if you are organized, if you are disciplined, if you have structure, then regular people in congressional districts could get Congress to do things that were off-‐the-‐charts unpredictable.”

Believing that the best way to reduce carbon emissions, like the best way to

reduce cigarette-‐smoking, is to raise its price, the organization wrote a two-‐page bill that would charge the fossil-‐fuel industry a fee of $15 per ton of emissions they generate, and then raise it about $10 a year for 10 years.

The revenues would be returned to citizens as dividend checks, so that consumers would be cushioned from the affects of rising energy prices as we all transition to clean energy.

Reynolds said the carbon fee and dividend legislation would send a clear signal to the market that there was money to be made in solar, wind and geothermal. Seeing that, entrepreneurs, banks and venture capitalists would “come flying off the sidelines” to invest in renewable energy.

“This is not one of those one-‐time marches that is going to solve things,” Reynolds said on the lobby’s most recent monthly conference call, during which he introduces the organization to people from around the country. “We view this the same as the effort it would take to end slavery or get women the vote.”

A version of the bill was recently introduced by California congressman Pete Stark as the Save Our Climate Act.

Para was attracted to the organization exactly because of its work with the carbon fee and dividend legislation, which climatologist Hansen promotes in his book, and for which he has endorsed Citizens Climate Lobby.

In February, she started a Madison chapter and now is working to get a chapter started in every Wisconsin congressional district.

“You have your up days and your down days, but weekly I get to hear from people across the country about what they’re doing and so that gives me a sense of momentum and connection,” Para said. “It’s not that I don’t have my episodes of thinking it’s too late, it’s lost. But then I just keep one foot going in front of the other, and optimism usually comes back.”

She said the lobby has a support system for its activists better than any organization she has been in.

She sees Citizens Climate Lobby as her home base for climate work, and said they have empowered her to build relationships with key decision-‐makers, like congress members and newspaper editorial boards, as well as leaders who usually fall outside the traditional environmental camp.

“We don’t have tens of thousands of people,” she said, “but the people we do have are incredible activists and organizers who, like me, work at it consistently.”

MADISON, WISCONSIN EDITORIAL, NOV. 3, 2011

Get behind the Save Our Climate Act

California congressman Pete Stark, saying we’re running out of time to wean the country off fossil fuels that are heating up the planet, has introduced the Save Our Climate Act in an effort to halt the worst effects of climate change.

Stark’s bill would tax coal, oil and gas based on the amount of carbon dioxide these fuels emit when burned. The tax would start at $10 per ton of CO2 and increase $10 each year until carbon dioxide levels fall to 20 percent of 1990 levels. Most of the revenues from the tax — estimated at $2.6 trillion in the first 10 years — would be returned to consumers as an annual rebate to offset what are likely to be higher energy costs.

A portion of the revenue — $490 billion — would go to help balance the federal budget.

The introduction of the bill was a victory for the Citizens Climate Lobby, a nationwide organization with a chapter here in Madison. Believing that the so-‐called cap-‐and-‐trade plan to reduce emissions is dead, the citizens lobby has been advocating a plan it calls the “carbon free and dividend” plan. The plan is revenue neutral, requires no new government money or positions, and would direct investment toward clean energy.

Stark’s bill incorporates most of the Citizens Climate Lobby’s goals.

Madeleine Para, who has been heading the Madison chapter since it was organized earlier this year, applauded the news, as do we.

She and a group of other Madisonians recently spent time in Washington, where they met with 160 members of Congress in an effort to get them to support the plan. Para said that more people have been coming back to the realization that the world is facing climate change.

In addition to providing an incentive for companies to invest in clean energy, the tax on carbon and the return of it as dividends to consumers would also reduce the need for the federal government to fund experimental firms like the ill-‐fated Solyndra solar panel manufacturer.

Stark’s proposal faces a long path through the halls of Congress, but it is one that deserves strong public support if we’re going to save the environment from further CO2 damage.

Wisconsin’s congressional delegation needs to get behind the Save Our Climate Act, as do the rest of us.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to [email protected]. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less. Copyright 2011 madison.com. All rights reserved.

Posted in Editorial on Thursday, November 3, 2011 4:30 am Updated: 4:41 pm. Save Our Climate Act, Pete Stark, Fossil Fuel, Tax, Citizens Climate Lobby, Madeleine Para, Clean Energy,


Bill would attack CO2 as cause for warming

It's invisible. It's odorless. It's naturally occurring, but carbon dioxide is insidiously increasing in our atmosphere and now, ("Greenhouse Gas Takes Big Jump," ADN, Nov. 4, 2011) it appears the rate of increase is greater than previously predicted. The vast majority of climatologists world-‐wide agree that the ominous rise in greenhouse gases is man-‐caused and is impacting the planet's climate. Richard Muller, ("Skeptic Accepts Global Warming," ADN Oct. 31, 2011) now agrees that the science is sound and that global warming is occurring. We should be worried that our

children and grandchildren will live in a more perilous world if this problem continues unabated.

The U.S. has been to slow to take action, but Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., has introduced H.B. 3242 -‐-‐ Save Our Climate Act -‐-‐ that proposes a tax on carbon-‐based fuels with the revenue being returned back to individuals to offset the higher cost of energy. This will reduce fossil fuel burning and make investment in renewable forms of energy more attractive. Let's get behind this or a similar plan. -- John R. DeLapp

October 27, 2011


At last, a bill to tax carbon

Admittedly, it's a long shot that Rep. Pete Stark's (D-CA)Save Our Climate Act of 2011,

introduced Monday, will ever make it out of committee, but having been a Mets fan in 1969, I do believe in miracles.

If nothing else, Stark's bill reopens the conversation that abruptly ceased after the 2010 mid-term election about climate change and how best to address it. Rather than nibbling at the edges with a regulation here and a higher fuel efficiency standard there -- good things, for sure, but insufficient to tackle the problem -- Stark's bill goes right to the heart of the problem: The need to put a price on carbon that weans our nation off fossil fuels and reduces the greenhouse gases that are altering the Earth's climate.

Remarkably simple at 18 pages, the Save Our Climate Act calls for a tax starting at $10 per ton on the carbon dioxide that a fuel would emit when burned. The tax would be imposed at the first point of sale -- at the mine, well or port of entry. Each year, it would increase by $10 a ton, sending a clear predictable price signal to the investment community that wind, solar and other alternative sources of energy will be a smart bet.

Underscoring the importance of a clear price signal on carbon is the recent 2011 Global Investor Statement on Climate. Representing 285 investors holding assets of $20 trillion, the statement concluded:

"Private investment can and must play a critical role in addressing the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. However, private sector investment will only flow at the scale and pace necessary if it is supported by clear, credible and long-term domestic and international policy frameworks -- "investment-grade climate change and energy policies" -- that shift the balance in favour of low-carbon investment opportunities."

If enacted, Stark's bill would generate massive amounts of revenue, a tantalizing prospect in cash-strapped Washington. But rather than spend the money on a plethora of pet projects or sops to the fossil fuel industry, the Save Our Climate Act would divvy up most of the revenue and return it to American consumers as an annual payment. The "dividend" from the carbon tax would therefore offset rising energy costs that households will experience from the carbon tax. And the more people do to reduce their carbon footprint -- increasing energy efficiency, driving electric or hybrid vehicles -- the more dividend they get to keep.

As I said, "most" of the revenue would be returned to households. The legislation will take a small portion of the money to pay down the national debt. The Carbon Tax Center estimates that in 10 years time this would eliminate close to half a trillion dollars of our nation's $15 trillion debt. In the second year of the tax, $10 per ton would go to debt reduction and be applied to that purpose in subsequent years. The amount returning to households would continue to rise as the tax increases each year. In 10 years time, when the tax reaches $100 per ton, $10 of every $100 would be devoted to debt reduction and $90 would be given back to consumers. At that point, the Carbon Tax Center estimates the average annual dividend would be $1,170.

The timing of Stark's bill appears propitious, as the campaign to stop the Keystone XL pipeline has re-energized the anti-carbon fuel movement. The turning point for that campaign occurred around Labor Day with the arrest of more than 1,200 peaceful protestors outside the White House calling for Obama to reject the pipeline. The campaign, spearheaded by 350.org's Bill McKibben, has galvanized support throughout the environmental community, making it harder and harder for the administration to say "yes" to TransCanada. Those efforts will culminate in a protest on Nov. 6, where thousands of people are expected to circle the White House.

Stopping Keystone XL, of course, is only the beginning. It will temporarily curtail the supply of oil, but not our insatiable thirst. To preserve a livable world, we must also reduce demand for fossil fuels, and the best way to reduce demand is to increase the price. If the people who responded to the call to action on Keystone XL expend a similar effort to support Stark's bill, there may be hope for us yet.


OCT. 25, 2011

House Dems, swimming upstream, push carbon tax By Ben Geman

Nine liberal House Democrats are floating legislation to impose a carbon tax on fossil-‐fuel producers and importers, a measure they say would cut the deficit by a half-‐trillion dollars and steer $2 trillion to consumers over a decade. Some climate analysts say a carbon tax on production of oil, coal and other fossil fuels is a simpler and more efficient way to stem greenhouse gas emissions than cap-‐and-‐trade systems. But tax proposals likely face even longer political odds than cap-‐and-‐trade legislation, which collapsed on Capitol Hill last year. Nonetheless, Rep. Pete Stark (D-‐Calif.), the bill’s lead sponsor, said the tax plan is a vital way to help avert dangerous warming. The bill, which begins with a tax of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide and goes up from there, is aimed at cutting U.S. emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels over several decades.

“We have a moral obligation to act to prevent catastrophic climate change and preserve our planet for future generations,” said Stark, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, in a statement. “The Save Our Climate Act is a first step toward meeting that obligation and creating a sensible tax code that incentivizes innovation, reduces the deficit and protects families from rising energy costs.” Co-‐sponsors include Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-‐Ariz.), who co-‐chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Jim Moran (D-‐Va.), Bob Filner (D-‐Calif.) and five others. The bill drew cheers from groups that promote carbon taxes. “We’re running out of time to wean our nation off the fossil fuels that are heating up the planet,” said Citizens Climate Lobby Executive Director Mark Reynolds in a statement. “We need to put a price on carbon that shifts energy usage to clean sources, and that’s what Congressman Stark’s bill does.”

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 17, 2011

Military lauded for green energy support I’d like to thank these senior

military officers who authored “Why we must support clean energy: national security” (Opinion, Oct. 13) for their insight and clear direction. With the military urging prompt action to combat climate change and redouble our efforts to transition to clean energy, it is time our elected officials listened – and listened carefully.

Sadly, it seems to have become popular among some Republicans,

including most of the presidential candidates, to speak with angry and dismissive rhetoric these days about climate change, regulation of greenhouse gases or the need to press forward now with clean energy. You have to hope the wisdom shared does not continue to fall on deaf and stubbornly uninformed ears.

When will the rational voices in both parties speak up? We need a price on carbon. -‐-‐ John H. Reaves, San Diego


Energy and security In response to “Why we must

support clean energy: national security” (Opinion, Oct. 13): As climate change reduces food productivity, fragile nations will soon become failed states, requiring more American intervention when we are already stretched too thin.

Perhaps the leadership the writers exhibited as military officers will inspire similar leadership from San Diego’s Republican congressional delegation – Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa and Duncan Hunter. Such inspiration would lead them to support a predicable, steadily increasing fee on

carbon-‐based fuels that would transition our nation from dirty energy to clean energy. This solution is supported by prominent economists, such as Arthur Laffer of the Reagan administration and Greg Mankiw of the Bush administration.

If we return all revenue from the carbon fee to consumers, we will shield households from the impact of rising energy costs and allow Republicans to keep pledges they may have made to support only revenue-‐neutral solutions on climate change. -‐-‐ Mark Reynolds, Citizens Climate Lobby, Coronado


A carbon dividend Re “Harper’s no fossil fool”

(Editorial, Oct. 11): Cap-‐and-‐trade is wrought with too many challenges to be a significant driver in innovation and greenhouse gas emission mitigation. There is a carbon pricing mechanism that Conservatives should look at — carbon fee-‐and-‐dividend. Taxpayers pay for carbon emissions through their health and environmental clean up. Put a price on

carbon when it enters the market, increase it incrementally every year, and give the dividend back to taxpayers. This will send a market signal to invest in clean energy, which will diversify our economy. It will also help taxpayers shoulder rising costs in carbon until cleaner forms of energy become more affordable. Cheryl McNamara


A mature science Re: Global warming, global

worries (Oct. 11). Tom Harris said, "No one really knows whether warming or cooling lies in the decades ahead -‐-‐ the science is simply too immature." This is preposterous.

Is something older than 180 years immature? The existence of global warming gases were first proposed by the great mathematician Joseph Fourier in the early 1820s to explain why the Earth was warmer than one would expect given its distance from the sun.

Tyndall discovered in 1859 that carbon dioxide and water were transparent to the light from the sun but absorbed heat energy, and then radiated that heat energy, somewhat like glass in a greenhouse.

By 1896, Svante Arrhenius completed laborious numerical computations that linked the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the temperature in Europe. To this date, these calculations remain accurate.

In the 21st century, 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that human greenhouse gas production by burning of fossil fuels and land use practices are causing drastic changes in the climate. If 97 out of 100 doctors gave you a diagnosis that you had a terminal condition you could cure if

you gradually eliminated one bad habit, would you not take that advice? CATHY ORLANDO Citizen Climate Lobby Sudbury, Ont.

Tom Harris is part of a well-‐organized campaign to confuse the public about the science of climate change, creating the illusion that there is a debate when there really isn't.

Harris and his ilk have taken a page out of the playbook of the tobacco companies, which denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer for decades, confusing the public and delaying public health action.

In fact, Harris's resume shows he worked for APCO Worldwide, the PR firm hired by tobacco giant Phillip Morris in 1993 to do just that.

It's unfortunate that the Free Press allowed Harris a pulpit to spread his petroleum propaganda, without disclosing his close ties to the oil and gas industry. The reality is that 98 per cent of climate scientists -‐-‐ folks who actually do the research -‐-‐ agree the Earth is warming and human activity from burning fossil fuels is the main reason. CHRISTINE PENNER POLLE Red Lake, Ont.

Blueprint for a Renewable Energy Infrastructure Bank By Joseph Robertson, Oct. 12, 2011

We need a system of cooperative public-private infrastructure financing, a national infrastructure bank. But we also need to use that fabric of cooperative investment and output to foster specific areas of major improvement to our national economy. The model could be replicated across the world, but the US is uniquely positioned to deploy this solution and to vastly improve its chances of restoring vibrancy to the wider middle class by doing so.

Two parallel projects are necessary to make the infrastructure redevelopment and economic recovery strategy a success:

• a renewable energy infrastructure bank - to help target some of the wider funding options to the project of building a sustainable, smart energy economy, free of the massive externalized costs of carbon-based fuels

• an economic opportunity bank - to aggressively, specifically and persistently direct funds to businesses that are hiring, building capacity at the community level, and restoring real wage gains to the middle class

The first is our topic here: a national renewable energy infrastructure bank. To build such a bank, we would need to first establish how a cooperative public-private infrastructure financing scheme would work. Ideally, it needs to work much like an investment bank, where individual investors see visible gains, but money is kept in the pot for a long enough period of time to produce gain across the full spectrum of investor contributions.

In other words, there has to be commitment to the project, and that shared commitment of resources will yield shared substantial gains to all parties. In the area of clean energy investment, this is possibly much easier than with other types of infrastructure investment, because the industry is entering into a period of massive, and necessary, prolonged expansion. Big investors understand that big investment will help to secure that prolonged expansion.

If Congress acts to incentivize this investment, massive amounts of private-sector capital will flow to clean energy resources. There are three reasons why this will happen:

1. Fossil fuels carry with them massive production costs that have long been externalized; the economy can no longer afford to continue such a strategy.

2. Clean energy technologies offer a major opportunity for prolonged expansion of business value, as

information technologies have shown over the last 30 years.

3. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of private capital sitting on the sidelines, waiting for directional certainty that fossil fuels cannot provide.

So, how to structure such an operation? The renewable energy infrastructure bank would need the following to reach its full potential:

1. A national price signal or clear set of incentives to direct investment to clean energy

2. An investment strategy that looks at best practices, value to community, prospects for building aggregate demand, and structural resiliency

3. A focus on job-creation, skilled retraining, and positive value feedback loops that favor consumers

4. A legislative charter that sets forth priorities favorable to public-sector, private-sector and start-up investors alike

5. A model for redirecting funding when key elements of a project require support or restructuring

6. A focus on rewarding institutions, individuals and investors who do cutting-edge R&D that is practicable, 100% carbon-emissions-free and scalable

7. Short-, medium- and long-term investment strategies for building, optimizing and utilizing the smart grid

Suggestions for deployment:

1. Implement a national carbon fee and dividend policy, to correct market failures in the pricing of carbon, return control of the energy economy to households and incentivize major private capital investment in the rapidly expanding clean tech sector

2. Identify, build or support and expand, focus facilities in cities and regions across the country, to operate as cooperative laboratories of R&D, start-up incubators, and investment engines (examples might be Brooklyn Navy Yard or Philadelphia Navy Yard, or the Fab Labs project)

3. Motivate scalability planning for distributed clean energy production projects, to ensure sustained investment opportunities, and optimized overlap between community-building, job-creation and investment strategies, for higher overall cost efficiency

4. Ensure legal support for avoiding corrosive business models, favoring generative ones, to ensure Investment flows to the new technologies and collaborative strategies that build future prosperity, not to extraction-oriented investments

5. Reward rapid ramping up of high-efficiency clean energy tech, because this will build structural resiliency, favor the highest-value market-healing technologies, and help to revive the middle class

We can begin doing this nationally tomorrow, if:

• We focus first on wind and solar, due to their naturally occurring US domestic supply far outstripping total demand and all possible demand growth

• We commit to decentralizing innovation, influence and income-growth in the energy sector, so community and regional economies are empowered by the transition

• We recognize the need to fully develop leading-edge infrastructure at all levels

• We identify and elevate the pioneers who already know how to motivate and execute this transition

• We charter public-private partnerships to manage investment flows to stakeholder-defined initiatives

The clean energy economy is coming, and to fully enable its expansion, the US needs to flex the muscle necessry to turn the ship of state, to wrest from entrenched industries and financial investment patterns rooted more in extraction than in generative payoff the ability to decide what comes next. There is nothing beyond clean and renewable in terms of energy production and distribution, except the work of achieving the most advanced efficiency gains and making robust power generation an ever more ephemeral affair, at an ever faster rate.

To lead in that new economy, we need to be the first to build its value.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCTOBER 12, 2011

A cloud over Solyndra deal

The Post’s editorial raises some good points about the government’s handling of the Solyndra loan guarantees. But if government bureaucrats are “crappy” venture capitalists with no skin in the game themselves, what is the alternative? Given the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs, it’s in our best interest to help the clean-‐energy sector thrive and grow.

How can we do that without putting taxpayer money at risk? By placing a gradually increasing fee on

carbon-‐based fuels and giving the revenue back to consumers. A clear, predictable price on carbon will move massive amounts of private investment into solar, wind and other technologies. Returning revenue to households will prevent rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee from becoming a burden on consumers. Mark Reynolds, Coronado, Calif. The writer is executive director of the Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS, OCT. 10, 2011

Energy sense Re "Keystone: the wrong question," Editorial, Oct. 6 The Times is correct to assume that stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will not decrease the demand for tar sands oil. The only sure way to decrease demand for carbon-‐based fuels is to raise the cost. But can we do so without hurting our economy? Certainly — by putting a steadily rising fee on oil, gas and coal and giving the revenue back to the American people as direct payments. The price signal of a carbon fee will unleash massive amounts of private investment for clean energy, perhaps allowing the government to get out of

the subsidies business. Giving the money back to consumers will shield households from the economic impact of energy costs associated with the carbon fee. Let's stop the pipeline because of the risk it poses to natural resources. But let's put a price on carbon to reduce demand for tar sands oil. Mark Reynolds Coronado, Calif. The writer is executive director of the Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 7, 2011 OIL PIPELINE

TransCanada pipeline isn’t the answer for U.S. The controversy surrounding the

TransCanada pipeline doesn’t surprise me (“Pipeline emails raise bias question,” News, Oct. 4). What surprises me is that we would take private lands to benefit foreign corporations and keep us addicted to foreign oil.

Why not build battery-‐swapping stations throughout the United States, so our car companies can build electric cars and light trucks that run on standardized battery packs? Need a charge? Just drive through a battery-‐swapping station and get a recharged battery.

We could rebuild the railroads to run on electricity. The railroads would become the much-‐needed electric grid tying together wind and solar farms. We could also place a fee on fossil fuels and give this back to households, encouraging private investment needed to rebuild America into an energy-‐independent nation — with plenty of jobs, healthier people and a bright future, where a TransCanada pipeline proposal would simply be a bad pipe dream. Todd Smith, Jasper

O C T O B E R 0 7 , 2 0 11

LETTERS PRODS FROM GOVERNMENT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

Put price on carbon without forcing consumers to foot the bill

REGARDING JOHN Sununu’s column ("Public burned by solar loans,’’ Op-ed, Oct. 3), I agree on one thing: The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the clean-energy field. But given the risks associated with climate change and the need to create jobs, it is still smart policy to create incentives for the expansion of clean energy.

Is there a way to do that without using subsidies at taxpayer expense? Here’s my suggestion: Put a steadily increasing fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue to all households. A clear, predictable price on carbon would unleash massive amounts of private investment that would flow to solar, wind, and other emerging technologies.

The marketplace would then determine which of these businesses succeed and fail based on their ability to compete. Returning revenue to households would shield consumers from the impact of higher energy costs associated with the carbon fee. Making the fee revenue-neutral might also entice support from Republicans who do not wish to expand the size of government.

Sununu raises good questions about the government’s role in clean energy, but let’s give the private sector a reason to step up by putting a price on carbon.

Mark Reynolds Executive director Citizens Climate Lobby Coronado, Calif.


Don’t support Keystone project NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript: Let’s run the numbers: TransCanada claims: 20,000 direct

jobs. State Dept. analysis says: 5,000 to

6,000. Actual local hires in South Dakota

when Keystone 1 was built (in 2010) — 11 percent. (FOIA data from Case Number: HP09-‐00 I — provided by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.)

That track-‐record would change 5,000 to 6,000 jobs to 550 to 660 local American hires. But, of course, those 550 to 660 jobs have to be spread out over 1,711 miles, from Montana to Texas.

Oklahoma would be lucky to get 60 or 70 — a far cry from the bloated 20,000 jobs claim.

Sadly, the unions drank the corporate Koolaid. Even worse, they have crawled in bed with the very same companies who sent millions of their union jobs overseas. We have a saying in the South: “My mamma didn’t raise no fool.” What has happened to the unions and common sense?

I am a lifetime member of my teacher’s union, which joined with the UAW to picket Mid-‐Del Schools back in the ’80s. I was on the picket line. Unions should be threatening to picket this fraudulent tar sands project, Keystone XL, not promoting it.

Mary Francis Norman

October 5, 2011


We the People… Want to Price Carbon

I've never put a lot of stock in online petitions. Ask any member of Congress why they voted for a particular piece of legislation, and chances are they won't say, "It was the 20,000 signatures on that Internet site that won me over." I've always held that a dozen personal, handwritten letters are far more persuasive than thousands of clicks on a Web page.

But when the White House recently launched their "We The People" petition site, I thought I'd give it a shot. I figured if they're asking for our opinion, they might just listen. And there's a payoff if you get enough signatures. Any petition that crosses the 5,000 threshold will be reviewed by the appropriate staff, who will send a response out to all who signed the petition.

My thinking was this: Given the little PR problem the president is having lately with the Solyndra failure, perhaps he's looking for advice on ways that we can expand clean-energy businesses without rolling the dice with taxpayer money. So, I came up with a petition of my own:

Put a fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue to households.

The failure of Solyndra is no indication that solar -- or other types of clean energy -- is a bad investment. A recent Brookings study shows clean tech has been the fastest growing sector over the last seven years and is producing jobs at an amazing clip. The Solyndra failure simply tells us that the government doesn't need to be picking winners and losers in clean energy. If we put a clear, predictable price on carbon, private

“We believe the Obama Administration should propose legislation that would place a gradually-increasing fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue from that fee to American consumers. Such a fee would motivate private investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, creating new jobs and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Returning revenue to consumers would shield households from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee.”

investment will make federal subsidies look like chump change, and the shift to carbon-free power will be off and running. The marketplace will decide which businesses emerge on top and which fall by the wayside -- without the loss of federal funds.

With loan-guarantee programs for clean energy on the defensive, a price on carbon is needed now more than ever to keep investment flowing to solar, wind and other alternatives to fossil fuels.

Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) is about to introduce a bill similar to what's proposed in the petition. His legislation would take a portion of carbon tax revenue to pay down the deficit and give the rest back to consumers. (More on that in a later post.)

In the meantime, let's see if we can get the White House on board. Aside from putting carbon pricing back on Obama's radar, here's another reason we

need a good showing on this petition: As evidenced by their impending approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, the White House has made the political calculation that they have less to lose by ignoring climate change than they do by acting to stop it. In every way possible, Americans need to let the administration know this is a bad assumption. Signing this petition -- and the one to stop the pipeline -- is one way to do that.

There's one little catch with the petitions. We have 30 days to amass 5,000 signatures. Otherwise, nobody in the West Wing will give a hoot. I've been circulating this petition for a week, now, and it's getting some traction -- about 700 signatures. But I could us a little help. If it sounds like a good idea to you, sign on and pass it along.

If we don't hit the 5,000 mark, it'll be pretty disappointing, especially in view of the fact that pot smokers already have 50,000 signatures to legalize marijuana.



Benefits wouldn’t outweigh cost of Keystone XL pipeline

NORMAN — Numerous oppositional arguments to the proposed pipeline have been presented, and I agree with all. It is said that many jobs will be created by pipeline construction and operation, but the numbers are exaggerated, and, more important, almost all of the jobs are temporary and the pipeline would increase local environmental problems.

Part of President Obama’s inaugural address, presented in January, 2009, was as follows: “That we are now in the midst of a crisis is well understood. ... Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. ...”

Now we have one of the so-‐called hard choices, but it is really simple! Construction of the proposed Keystone pipeline would facilitate continued dependence on petroleum in the U.S., and environmental destruction in Canada. It is clearly not in our national interest, nor is it in the global interest, and it should not be built.

There can be many more jobs here that would help solve long-‐range problems. For example, our oil usage is about twice the per capita usage in Europe, which has a far more extensive

system for transportation by rail. This situation in our country would be relieved by construction jobs for development here of energy-‐efficient systems for transportation by rail.

Our society needs to make a large transition away from oil, but this has not occurred in spite of decades-‐long warnings. Such transition will be painful, but less painful than the transition that would be forced on us soon by natural processes. Such natural processes arise from increase of population and associated emissions of greenhouse gases, and from associated resource depletion and rising prices of food and other essentials.

The Keystone XL pipeline would exacerbate these problems. It would postpone the societal transition that we sorely need, and it would facilitate the environmentally destructive and grossly emissive mining of tar sands in Ontario.

Jared Diamond, in his book, Collapse, notes that societal demise is often a sudden consequence of environmental neglects and environmental destruction. We must not fall victim to attitudes of hubris and exceptionalism.

EDWIN KESSLER Norman


Climate change critical issue Thank you for putting Charles

Hanley's article, highlighting the increasing threat of climate change and rising American skepticism, on the front page of the Sept. 25 paper.

There is a deafening silence among Alaskan politicians and among too many in our population. Considering all that is at stake, it is unconscionable

for "deniers" to make absurd claims, cherry picking facts with the intent to misrepresent and cloud the issue. Thank you for your courage in reporting on this too often lonely but critically important issue. -- Meg Coe Anchorage


What Milankovitch forcing really means In response to Darrell Beck's letter

(Sept. 14), and as a Ph.D. candidate in paleoclimatology at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, I feel responsible to correct some of his confusion.

The Milankovitch Theory of Climate Change refers to subtle changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the tilt of Earth's axis and the trend in the direction of that axis with respect to the fixed stars. Collectively, the influence that these three dominant orbital changes have on Earth's energy balance is rather small. Scientists have linked these orbital variations to the timing of glacials and interglacials (more or less ice) for the past 3 million years

based on evidence from all over the world.

Mr. Beck's part about "geological evidence found primarily in the Sahara Desert" is simply meaningless. Geological evidence for the orbital theory of climate change comes from all over the globe. It is true that all these same natural variations continue today. However, they happen over tens of thousands of years, not decades. They are background climate factors and they simply are not responsible for the increase in global temperatures over the past few decades. Sandra Turner Encinitas


Tipping point In an article published in many

newspapers around the country, Associated Press special correspondent Charles Hanley reported how denial of global warming has increased, primarily among Republicans, even as the evidence of human-‐caused warming has solidified.

Unfortunately, denial of science can be dangerous, even deadly. For instance, in 2000, South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that the HIV virus caused AIDS. His administration refused to provide retroviral drugs in public hospitals. Sadly, an estimated 330,000 people died from AIDS because of his policy and denial.

Since the time of Galileo, people have held on to cherished beliefs long

after science proved these beliefs wrong. Presently, the science of global warming is about as sound as the science of the Earth orbiting the sun.

Hopefully, those clinging to the belief that man is not causing global warming will relinquish that cherished belief sooner rather than later. The Earth can reach a tipping point where the effects of methane release, melting ice and warming oceans will continue to propel destructive warming even if we completely stop burning fossil fuel.

Every day that we delay acknowledging and acting on this issue, we come a day closer to that tipping point. David S. Folland


Climate and forests The comprehensive front page

story “Our Dying Forests” (Tribune, Sept. 25) should be a sobering wake-‐up call to all of us.

The beetle problem appears depressingly uncontainable, but how we got here is not new news. A number of factors have contributed to this, from fire-‐suppression policies to the decline of the timber industry. But the 800-‐pound gorilla in the room is clearly climate change: The West is in a prolonged drying trend and the winters are getting warmer.

Gov. Gary Herbert, Rep. Rob Bishop, most Republicans (and some Democrats) can blame the government all they want for the demise of our Western forests, and

they are right to do so. But not for the reasons they think.

The evidence is there, but our representatives continue to obfuscate and plead ignorance: We are causing (or, greatly accelerating) climate change, and until there is legislation — such as a carbon fee and dividend — we will continue to tip the environmental balance in favor of disaster.

No amount of clear-‐cutting, dismantling the government or praying for rain is going to change the current trend. Intelligent consensus and concerted action would work, but we appear to be in short supply of both. Jeff Clay Salt Lake City

OCT. 1, 2011

Pipeline controversy: Jobs vs. the environment By Joy Hampton The Norman Transcript

NORMAN — Controversy surrounding the Keystone Pipeline is not a battle between environmentalists and labor unions, said one of many workers the unions bused into Midwest City to speak at the Reed Center Exhibition Hall on Friday.

Union workers build wind farms and other environmentally friendly infrastructures, he asserted.

But voices heard at the Oklahoma public hearing on the controversial pipeline fell largely into those two categories. Representatives from oil companies and labor unions promoted the jobs they believe the project will bring. Environmentalists say the risk is too great.

The pipeline, if approved, will be built by Calgary-‐based TransCanada in order to carry tar sands oil — a form of heavy crude — across the United States from Canada all the way to the Gulf Coast and the large-‐scale refineries there.

The Golf Coast also allows for easy access to import the tar sands oil overseas, provoking the argument that the U.S. might take all of the risk and gain little of the profit from the Alberta oil deposits. Concern also was expressed that America’s underground aquifers, as well as its rivers and lakes, risk pollution by the project.

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 344 members Kenny Whitson and James McDonald, of Oklahoma City, are typical

of the labor union members speaking on behalf of jobs. They discount concerns by environmentalists.

“I think it’s people overreacting,” McDonald said.

“There’ll be a lot of jobs for welders, operators digging ditches and getting it back the way they found it again,” Whitson said. “It isn’t anything new. It’s just the length and the enormity of the job that sets this one apart.”

Oklahoma Sierra Club Chair Charles Wesner, of Norman, disagrees.

“This pipeline is delivering very crude, heavy, corrosive tar sands bitumen containing far more toxic compounds and heavy metals than conventional crude across Oklahoma’s farm and ranch land, crossing almost all our major rivers or their tributaries and important aquifers. Leaks and spills are common occurrences from such pipelines,” Wesner said. “A pipeline leak would have devastating effects.”

John Felmy, Ph.D. and chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, said the pipeline is essential to the economy.

“I’m from a pipeline family,” Felmy said. “This in an important issue for me both professionally and privately.”

The American Petroleum Institute is a national trade association and advocacy group that represents the oil and natural gas industry and negotiates with regulatory agencies.

“It’s basically bringing in an extra supply,” Felmy said. “The one thing it will do is open up Cushing.”

Felmy said the hub of storage tanks at Cushing has become a bottleneck with no way to get oil to the greater market.

“Even if we do export it, that’s a wonderful job opportunity,” Felmy said.

To environmentalists’ criticism that jobs produced by the pipeline project would be short-‐term, Felmy said that doesn’t matter.

“We need jobs in short term, we need jobs in the long run,” he said.

Those “short-‐term” jobs mean work for a couple of years and the economy needs that boost right now, Felmy said.

Chris Applegate, of Norman, works in the energy industry doing mapping. He’s also a member of the Sierra Club.

“We now have the technology today to extract oil and natural gas that, at one time, we were unable to get out of the ground,” Applegate said. “We need to keep energy in our own country.”

Applegate said horizontal drilling and fracking have made greater production possible. And while he agrees with environmentalists that fracking needs oversight, he said the improvements in technology have made it a reasonable process to use for extraction.

“Until wind, hydrogen and solar come into play more, we’re going to need natural gas and oil. That’s the reality,” Applegate said.

Applegate supports decreased reliance on fossil fuels but, in the meantime, supports local oil production, not a pipeline from Canada.

John McDowell of Norman said he has worked in oil and gas exploration for 40

years. He opposes transporting tar sands by pipeline.

“I don’t have anything against the pipeline,” McDowell said. “My complaint is the stuff they’re transporting through it.”

McDowell said tar sands crude is at “high risk of corrosive rupture.” It will be shipped through the pipeline unrefined.

“The U.S. ... has ample oil reserves,” McDowell said.

Pat McCauley, of Moore, came to speak against the pipeline because she believes it’s important to have a voice.

“I just believe you have to put your body where your beliefs are,” McCauley said.

She said though her voice may not change anything, but it’s important to her to try.

“If we don’t try, we can’t complain about it later,” McCauley said.

Retired teacher and Norman resident Mary Francis was also on hand to speak against the pipeline. Last month, Francis was among environmental activists who participated in a peaceful protest in front of the White House in an attempt to get President Barack Obama’s attention. The president has the power to stop the pipeline project.

“This issue will be a defining moment for this administration,” Wesner, said.

“Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security,” Francis said. Joy Hampton 366-‐3539 jhampton@ normantranscript.com Like me on Facebook


A serious carbon tax debate is needed today There is little to disagree with in

Buzz Belleville's Op/Ed column, "Reinventing a revenue-‐neutral carbon tax proposal," but one aspect warrants comment.

The price of carbon should not be determined solely by the magnitude of existing tax credits. Today, tax credits are a minor part of the overall energy economy. The cost advantage for renewable energy sourcesmust be large enough to stimulate the investment needed to build out supporting infrastructure on the same scale as exists for fossil fuels today. Using existing tax credits to determine the price of carbon would not provide price advantages to renewable energy sufficient to motivate investors to support companies in building this infrastructure.

A better solution would be to put a fee on carbon that would increase by a fixed amount every year. All proceeds could continue to be returned to households as under Belleville's proposal. This approach would give investors the price certainty they need to make well-‐reasoned investment decisions, and it would signal that massive investments in clean energy infrastructure are warranted based on guaranteed future price differentials.

Thank you for publishing Belleville's column. It is an important contribution to a critical debate we need to be having in our country. Gary Rucinski. Newton, Mass.

ccl press file oct. 2011 - march 2012

Documents

levants religion

climate scientists

climate change science

global climate change

levants false religion

science of human

climate change denial

green energy programs