Red, Green and Blue: The Hairshirt Response to Global Warming
Editor's note: We're proud to revive Red, Green and Blue, our weekly political feature. We've made some changes: first, our new writer Shirley Siluk Gregory will represent the progressive side; Jimmy Hogan will continue to take the conservative position in these debates. Second, we're trying out a new format — Shirley and Jimmy will each give "opening statements," and then debate each other in the comments of the post. You're welcome (and encouraged) to join the fray!
Topic: Major sacrifice by American citizens is necessary to meet the challenges posed by climate change and other environmental problems.
Shirley: Imagine, for a minute, that your doctor has called to deliver a "bad news, good news" diagnosis.
The bad news? Over the next 20 years, you're very likely to develop a serious, chronic disease with painful, debilitating and life-altering effects.
The good news? If you radically alter your habits now, you can save yourself from the worst, long-term symptoms of your disease. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
So the question is, would you do it? Would you sacrifice some of life's pleasures and make the hard choices necessary today to gain yourself a healthier, happier future in years to come?
By now, I'm sure, you've seen the analogy to global warming: a little pain now puts off a lot of pain later, according to the best of what science is telling us today. Unfortunately, even many green-minded types aren't yet talking about the real and drastic changes we would need to start making today to keep the impact of global warming from becoming catastrophic in years to come. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Toyota Priuses and carbon offsets alone won't cut it.
Jimmy: As much as we feel it is important to sacrifice for those things in which we truly believe, I'm convinced that sacrifice may have the unintended consequence of doing more harm than good; especially when that sacrifice is imposed on society at large. History teaches that common sense incentives combined with innovation and technology will solve the world's environmental problems faster and less painfully than any manner of sacrifice imposed or otherwise. America's market economy is the best friend the environment has and is the best hope of dealing with a growing world population and increasing world environmental concerns.
Let the fun begin!
Tags: Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, politics, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
If I build a place it will be like the passivhaus design. I’ve been a Mother Earth subscriber since I was 15 and I’m sold on the benefits of passive, etc…
Ain’t no way in heck you are going to talk me into subjugating our USofA to some world enviro-authority though.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Re; Leonardo and Paris … he seems like a good enough guy, but please, Paris? Ugh.
I’m basing my recommendations on a more reputable source: George Monbiot, a U.K. journalist who recently authored “Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.” His logic: follow the carbon, and see what it takes to avoid even more expensive long-term environmental and human costs as global warming worsens. Check it out here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/31/heres-the-plan/#more-1027
U.K. economist Nicholas Stern reached a similar conclusion in his exhaustive (700-plus pages) report on the economic impact of global warming late last year: NOT taking action now to curb the impact of warming will result in far more costly ramifications in the long term. See the report here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
Am I saying these sacrifices I’ve discussed will be easy? Absolutely not. They are, as Monbiot concludes, what the science appears to dictate. Is it at all likely any of these fixes will be enacted? I’ll be the first to acknowledge some don’t have a snowball’s chance. It’s hard enough to get a simple majority of people to recognize the reality of global warming and its potential costs; enacting such radical changes absent that is highly unlikely.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
It seems that both Shirley and I agree that the Kyoto Protocol and carbon offsets are jokes. Weird.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Didn't mean to delete James comment on Monbiot… made a few wrong clicks, though… apologies. Anyway, he criticized Monbiot as a "moonbat," and otherwise pointed to his leftist tendecies as evidence that we couldn't take his arguments seriously…. My response:
Hmmm… while I'm on the fence about Monbiot myself (and have read Heat), I'm not exactly sure how any of this addresses the arguments he makes…. or Shirley makes for that matter. Do you know the etmology of "ad hominem…"
Back to the real argument, though…. Unfortunately, I think Monbiot undermines the argument for sacrifice by ultimately concluding that we can't make the necessary changes in lifestyle, as well as in our business and political culture, to really decrease carbon emissions as much as is necessary. While I'm definitely left of center in my outlook, I think we have to avoid 1) defeatism, and 2) focusing on "sacrifice" — that's generally not going to go over well with most people. Rather, I think we have to focus on the opportunities this creates to rethink our lifestyles, individually and collectively, and to act creatively in response. I think that's possible… but not if we choose to either deny the realities, or accept defeat…
Jimmy, I've never quite understood the whole "redistributionist" characterization of Kyoto (or of the environmental movement in general). I've always kind of assumed that such a characterization comes from people who've decided ahead of time that "green" = "socialism." If that's the case, I'm scratching my head at the fact that energy companies, including GE, Shell and Duke Energy, are asking Congress for mandatory emissions caps. True, the caps they want may be more symbolic then truly effective — I don't have the actual numbers at my fingertips.
One of the most powerful tools we have available to us, and which harnesses the market, is the carbon tax. Make the companies that produce, and, by extension, the consumers that buy the most polluting products pay for the costs created by that pollution. Suddenly green products don't look so elitist… they're the cheaper alternative. While James will likely argue that this interfers with the "invisible hand," let's not be naive — the fact that the government (and by extension, the taxpayer) picks up the tab for the environmental costs of business as usual also interferes with the invisible hand. Such taxes restore costs to those that produce them, and those who choose to purchase goods and services that create higher levels of pollution (GHGs or otherwise). No one has to "sacrifice," then — they simply have to pay for their choices.
But, I'm guessing Jimmy will just say we just want to punish business…
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
April 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Shirley,
Paris and Leonardo are not-so-subtle search-bot blegs…
I’m really not sold on Anthropologic global warming as it relates to CO2. I think particulate reduction is a better explanation of the last 30 years; upon which most of the models base their progressive trend-lines.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
April 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I’d go for an oil tax, Jeff but I’m a little reluctant to go as far as a carbon tax because, again, I still am not sold on carbon as the problem. A greenhouse gas tax gets me a little closer but since I think AGW is, ironically, a result of our polution control successes so I’d want to err on the side of caution and not tax for that either.
In the spirit of focusing on where we agree and actually solving the problem though; I think an environmental and geopolitical tax on oil is merited and overdue. The problem is that energy taxes are regressive in nature so that’ll meet strong resistance with the populists and their representatives.
Since Kyoto barred us from using our own carbon sinks (forests) to offset our CO2 production and forced us to instead negotiate with third world countries to buy offsets (with a UN appointed board as the arbiter over the whole deal) I don’t know how you could call this thing anything other than a ‘wealth redistribution treaty’. The exclusion of India and China from carbon thresholds just adds to the evidence that the real goal is not CO2 mitigation.
I believe, however, I’ve read that we in the US are outpacing other signatory nations in reducing CO2 emission growth. (I’ll do a google later to try and find that article).
Any comments on adjusting car tax and insurance to be more driver related than car related as a way to encourage people to match the car to the situation?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
And addressing the ‘punish businesses’ point…
I think the best way to tax is to try to index the price consumers pay to the real cost. By doing this you make it easier and more comfortable for people to do right than it is for them to do wrong.
Gasoline is highly subsidized both environmentally, economically (trade deficit) and by the fact that we send our army across the globe about once a decade to protect and secure world oil interests. If this ‘real cost’ were seen at the pump by everyone instead of being buried-up in our progressive income tax structure then you’d see strong alternatives and radical conservation beginning tomorrow.
Such a structure eliminates the need for non-value-added controls.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I never called Monbiot a “moonbat” (that would be a dreaded ad hominem argument). Rather, I wanted to point out where the term came from.
If Shirley’s goal is to influence people, citing Monbiot verbatim is the last thing that would influence anyone to the political right of Lenin.
It’s like citing Marx or Guevera to a capitalist.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am
You’re starting to sound like a genuine libtard there, Jimmy! Most self-identified progressives I know would think of that as a pretty damn good start…
David
Founder and CEO
Green Options, LLC
April 19th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Quite an interesting discussion going on here. I have heard it before and see it here: people seem to assume that the economy is at odds with the environment, when that can’t be further from the truth if you take the bigger picture into account. The problem with neoclassical economics is that it is so short-sighted, and as Jimmy mentioned, doesn’t take the real cost of things like oil into account. What if we were charged the true cost of everything we bought - food (with all the shipping, processing, etc.), fuel, cars, everything.
Check out ecological economics or true cost economics, both are bigger-picture and more realistic approaches to economics that put economic value in things like clean air & water, forests, and natural resources. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics , http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/ , http://www.rprogress.org/). The GDP in particular is a completely flawed way to measure the economy, considering the GDP goes up when forests burn, people get cancer, etc.
Another thing I noticed in this discussion is the use of the word “sacrifice” - I think it has a negative connotation even though sacrifices are exactly what we’re going to have to make. I like to think of our need for change as a chance to rethink society and our own lives. Calling it sacrifice doesn’t make anyone want to participate in it. Perhaps a better word for it is necessary evolution…
And of course, I think rethinking not only how we get around and what we buy, but what we eat, is incredibly important in this evolution towards sustainability. Considering that raising animals for food produces more greenhouse gases than all the cars & trucks in the world combined, I often wonder why transportation is given so much attention in this debate. (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html , http://www.alternet.org/story/12162) Eating less meat is not only better easier on your wallet, it can help reverse global warming as well… just more food for thought.
~Megan Prusynski
my site | volksvegan adventures | unplug