CCL Press File July 2011-July 2012 by The HotSpring Network

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JULY 6, 2012

What we can do about climate change (2 letters) Re "Global warming in our backyard," Editorial, July 2 Thank you for your wonderful synopsis of the most recent climate science and how it pertains to Southern California. However, it is regrettable that it is still necessary to even mention climate skeptics. No news organization feels the need to mention plate tectonics skeptics when reporting on earthquakes or flat-Earth believers when reporting on space. It is a grim tribute to the success of climate skeptics and their financial backers (the Koch brothers, Heartland Institute and others) that the signs of climate change are this obvious, this severe, yet we have done nothing. History may forget the flat-Earthers and tectonics skeptics, but I fear the damage we have done to the climate system will not let us forget the climate skeptics, their financial backers, the politicians who did nothing and the media, which acknowledged the truth too late. Daniel Richter, La Jolla

Wonderful work. Funny you should mention the need for policies to reduce carbon emissions. There is presently a bill in the House, the Save Our Climate Act, proposing to put a $10 a ton price on the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of "any taxable fuel sold by the manufacturer, producer or importer thereof." It has 18 cosponsors and bipartisan support, as it is a market-based solution to the problem and includes a measure to distribute the revenue back to the populace (and temporarily to the deficit), making it effectively revenue neutral. Let's hope the cosponsors maintain their support despite the political climate. Tristan Carland San Diego

BLOG, JULY 5, 2012

Coal and Oil Have Their Lobbyists, but the Earth Has YOU It hit 109 degrees in Nashville over the weekend, but don't worry; ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson tells us we can keep extracting and burning fossil fuels to our heart's content, because we crafty humans can deal with anything nature throws at us: "We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution." Maybe he'd like to explain this engineering solution to the 346 families in Colorado Springs whose homes were reduced to ashes by the most destructive wildfire in state history. Perhaps he can tell the millions of people from Ohio to Virginia how we can adapt to storm systems like the one that leveled trees and left millions of people without power while the mercury broke the 100degree mark. He could also tell Washington Nationals all-star pitcher Stephen Strasburg how to last beyond the third inning when the game-time temperature is 106 degrees (115 on the field). Like the tobacco industry before it, which hired phony scientists to dispute the carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoking, the fossil fuel industry has waged a decades-long PR campaign to prevent our government from enacting policies to mitigate climate change. Their arguments keep shifting as the weight of scientific evidence blows their talking points out of the water. At first, they said there was no global warming. Then, well, maybe there is global warming, but we don't know if it's naturallyoccurring or man-made. Unable to hide the smoking gun of greenhouse gas emissions any longer, they've now rolled out their latest rationale to protect their profit margins: "We can adapt." Yes, we can adapt, but only if we contain global warming to levels that are indeed manageable, and that means we have to stop burning fossil fuels. From the mitigation perspective -- as opposed to the adaptation perspective -- Tillerson is right: It is an engineering problem. We need to quickly change the way we power our lives and get from one place to another. On that front, there was very encouraging news last week from the National Renewable Energy Lab's new study, which said that we can get 80

percent of our electricity from clean energy by 2050 using existing technology. Making that happen, however, requires economic incentive, like putting a predictable price on carbon that accounts for all the hidden costs -health, security, environmental -- inherent in fossil fuels. A politically-viable solution would be a straight tax on carbon-based fuels that returns the revenue to the public. So, what's stopping our nation from doing that? People like Rex Tillerson, who can say absurd things -- don't worry; we can adapt -- because of the power and money they wield. Members of Congress, petrified over the unlimited cash the petroleum industry can throw into advertising campaigns to unseat troublesome legislators, are all-too willing to listen to such inanities, nod their heads and sit on their hands. For anyone who cares about the future we're handing to our unsuspecting grandkids, this situation can be thoroughly depressing. But there is hope. Yes, it's true that the coal and oil industries have an army of paid lobbyists in Washington to look after their interests, but the Earth and future generations have a far more powerful advocate: YOU. Imagine this: Hundreds of constituents show up at congressional offices, sit down across a table from their representatives, take out pictures of their children and say, "This is my daughter. I'm here talking to you today because I don't want the world to be a horrible mess when she grows up and starts thinking about having kids of her own. I know you don't want that, either, so let's talk about how we can preserve a livable world for ALL children." That's one of the things that will happen later this month when volunteers from throughout the U.S. and Canada gather in Washington for the Citizens Climate Lobby 2012 International Conference (July 22-24). More importantly, what will happen is that ordinary citizens will discover the power they have to make a difference. And as they walk to congressional office buildings and see the visitors waiting in line to tour the Capitol, they will realize that they are no longer tourists. They

will see that, as Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweikert once said, "We are not just passengers on Spaceship Earth; we are the crew." Rex Tillerson tells us we can adapt, but what that adaptation really entails is reclaiming our democracy and wresting control from the corporate interests that have a stranglehold on our

government. If you think it's time to be piloting Spaceship Earth, then join us in Washington this month. Steve Valk, communications Citizens Climate Lobby Atlanta

director,

OPED, JULY 4, 2012

The Most Sensible Tax of All By YORAM BAUMAN and SHI-LING HSU ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households. The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage. The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. It’s an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security. Let’s start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes — on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers — is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N.

Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag andJoseph E. Stiglitz on the left. That’s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase longrun growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment. Of course, carbon taxes also lower carbon emissions. Economic theory suggests that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions more affordably and more effectively than any other measure. This conclusion is supported by empirical evidence from previous market-based policies, like those in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that targeted sulfur dioxide emissions. British Columbia’s carbon tax is only four years old, but preliminary data show that greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5 percent even as population and gross domestic product have been growing. Sales of motor gasoline have fallen by 2 percent since 2007, compared with a 5 percent increase for Canada as a whole. What would a British Columbia-style carbon tax look like in the United States? According to our calculations, a British Columbia-style $30 carbon tax would generate about $145 billion a year in the United States. That could be used to reduce individual and corporate income taxes by 10 percent, and afterward there would still be $35 billion left over. If recent budget deals are any guide, Congress might choose to set aside half of that remainder to reduce estate taxes (to please Republicans) and the other half to offset the impacts of higher fuel and electricity prices resulting from the carbon tax on low-income households through

refundable tax credits or a targeted reduction in payroll taxes (to please Democrats). Revenue from a carbon tax would most likely decline over time as Americans reduce their carbon emissions, but for many years to come it could pay for big reductions in existing taxes. It would also promote energy conservation and steer investment into clean technology and other productive economic activities. Lastly, the carbon tax would actually give Americans more control over how much they pay in taxes. Households and businesses could reduce their carbon tax payments simply by reducing their use of fossil fuels. Americans would trim their carbon footprints — and their tax burdens — by investing in energy efficiency at home and at work,

switching to less-polluting vehicles and pursuing countless other innovations. All of this would be driven not by government mandates but by Adam Smith’s invisible hand. A carbon tax makes sense whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, a climate change skeptic or a believer, a conservative or a conservationist (or both). We can move past the partisan fireworks over global warming by turning British Columbia’s carbon tax into a made-in-America solution. Yoram Bauman, an environmental economist, is a fellow at Sightline Institute in Seattle. Shi-Ling Hsu, a professor of law at the Florida State University, is the author of “The Case for a Carbon Tax” and was the invited speaker on CCL’s April conference call.

OPED, JULY 4, 2012

This summer is 'what global warming looks like' By SETH BORENSTEIN The Associated Press WASHINGTON â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Is it just freakish weather or something more? Climate scientists suggest that if you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, take a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks. Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho. These are the kinds of extremes experts have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June. Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen. And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years. But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms.

In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now. So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida. "This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level," said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. "The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about." Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn't listen. So it's I told-you-so time, he said. As recently as March, a special report an extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of "unprecedented extreme weather and climate events." Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution

and Stanford University, said Monday, "It's really dramatic how many of the patterns that we've talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now." "What we're seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like," said Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer. "It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters." Oppenheimer said that on Thursday. That was before the East Coast was hit with tripledigit temperatures and before a derecho â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a large, powerful and long-lasting straight-line wind storm â&#x20AC;&#x201D; blew from Chicago to Washington. The storm and its aftermath killed more than 20 people and left millions without electricity. Experts say it had energy readings five times that of normal thunderstorms. Fueled by the record high heat, this was among the strongest of this type of storm in the region in recent history, said research meteorologist Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory in Norman, Okla. Scientists expect "non-tornadic wind events" like this one and other thunderstorms to increase with climate change because of the heat and instability, he said. Such patterns haven't happened only in the past week or two. The spring and winter in the U.S. were the warmest on record and among the least snowy, setting the stage for the weather extremes to come, scientists say. Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said. "In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we've seen that in the last few summers," NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said. The 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires. While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He's a global warming skeptic who says, "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature." But the vast majority of mainstream climate scientists, such as Meehl, disagree: "This is what global warming is like, and we'll see more of this as we go into the future." This article is included in this collection because the Atlanta Journal Constitution published it at the urging of Steve Valk, Citizens Climate Lobby media director.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 30, 2012

Congress needs to get moving on climate change legislation Fresh off the hottest decade on record, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a relief to know that the judicial system has upheld the Environmental Protection Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change ("EPA's climatic victory," June 28). As a Millennial and an aunt, I'm deeply anxious about the future and I long for a bold transition to a cleanenergy economy before it's too late. This ruling will help spur that transition. While it is, as you state, "hard to believe a politically gridlocked

Congress is capable of taking appropriate action," we can't let lawmakers off the hook. Sixty-three percent Americans think the U.S. should take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases. Congress needs to hear our voices on this issue. Passing a bill that put a price tag on carbon emissions, such as Rep. Pete Stark's Save Our Climate Act, would show that our country is ready to take a leadership role on the most important challenge our planet faces today. Erica Flock Washington, D.C.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 12, 2012

Adapt to climate change The article "U.S. cities trail Latin America in climate change efforts" highlights how many U.S. cities are seeing the effects of climate change (changes in temperatures, sea levels, rainfall) and yet are not taking action to adapt and limit carbon emissions with the same seriousness as Latin American cities. We need a federal tax on carbon fuels to

encourage us to use less oil and gas, and to encourage investors to fund cleaner energies. If such a federal tax would be rebated to households, Americans would be able to cope with the transition to a clean energy economy. Judy Weiss, member of Citizens Climate Lobby, Boston chapter Brookline

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 5, 2012

Save Our Climate Act is necessary response “Arctic gas levels raise concerns” (News, June 1) was the headline and “temperatures and sea levels soon to follow,” the unspoken follow-up. The sooner we take steps such as a price on the emission of fossil carbon, the sooner we can make the changes to shrink our concerns. No one knows what will best enable us to avoid massive climate shifts, but the market would bring that technology if a

fair fee were assessed on fossil fuels at the source. This fee could be refunded to citizens to facilitate needed changes. The Save our Climate Act lays out clear mechanisms to do this and to address our concerns. It is the healthy and necessary response. Peter Peteet Atlanta

LTE, APRIL 13, 2012

Fossil fuel addiction threatens our world Like Jay Bookman, I noticed that the blossoms on the azaleas had come and gone long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at Augusta National (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Changing climate alters the Southeast,â&#x20AC;? ajc.com, April 9). We must face the facts that an unlivable world awaits us if we fail to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating up our planet. Our nation (and much of the world) is

hooked on fossil fuels, and an intervention is needed to prevent us from ruining the lives of our children and grandchildren. That intervention comes by weaning ourselves off coal and oil with a gradually rising fee on carbon-based fuels. If revenue is returned to the public, as it is in the Save Our Climate Act, we can detox without a shock to our economic system. Steve Valk, Atlanta

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 8, 2012

On climate change, no support from the senator THANK YOU to Frank Phillips for the report on a violation of the People’s Pledge by Scott Brown’s oil and gas industry supporters at the American Petroleum Institute ( “Brown to pay fine after group violates ad pact,’’ Metro, March 27). As a penalty for the organization having run print and radio ads on his behalf, Brown agreed to make a donation to charity of half the cost of the ads. I wonder how many times Brown’s friends will run ads, and he will acknowledge the violation, and then magnanimously pay the penalty. It seems like a good deal for Brown: he gets free press coverage about how graciously he gives money to charity, while he

can say he had no control over the ad run by an organization with which he is not affiliated. The ad still aired, though, and it still made its insidious arguments - and it only cost him half of what it would have cost him to place an ad himself. What a good deal. The only drawback is that climate change was not mentioned in the ad, nor in his acknowledgment of the violation - and Scott Brown’s intransigence regarding serious legislation to address climate change was not mentioned in the article, either. Judy Weiss Brookline

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Benefits of green energy outweigh cost IT WAS noteworthy that the Globe’s article about NStar’s deal to purchase electricity from Cape Wind did not focus exclusively on the higher cost of electricity from Cape Wind, but pointed out the advantages of this energy in terms of diversification of New England’s energy portfolio, societal cost savings due to foregone emissions of greenhouse gases, and price reductions related to applicable subsidies ( “NYSENSTNStar OKs top dollar deal with Cape Wind; But consumer impact projected as modest,’’ Page A1, March 31).

Even with these advantages, though, concerns about higher prices are easily understood. They put Massachusetts companies at a disadvantage compared to other regions. The best way to address this, however, is not by working to encourage Massachusetts to maintain or increase its dependence on fossil fuels, but by working at the federal level for climate and energy policies as progressive as ours, if not more so. Gary Rucinski Newton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Concerns about higher prices are easily understood IT WAS noteworthy that the Globe’s article about NStar’s deal to purchase electricity from Cape Wind did not focus exclusively on the higher cost of electricity from Cape Wind, but pointed out the advantages of this energy in terms of diversification of New England’s energy portfolio, societal cost savings due to foregone emissions of greenhouse gases, and price reductions related to applicable subsidies ( “NYSENSTNStar OKs top dollar deal with Cape Wind; But consumer impact projected as modest,’’ Page A1, March 31).

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 5, 2012

Clean Energy Illinois and four other states came a step closer to offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes (New, April 1), and that is welcome news. Wind farms, once mocked by climate skeptics and opponents of renewable energy, are now a profitable way to generate clean electricity for our homes and businesses. Experience gleaned from commercial wind farms will continue to bring down costs, as has always been the case with new technologies, to the point where tax credits are no longer needed to support them. But that time has not yet arrived. Although politicians have become allergic to the words "climate change," the scientific reality of that phenomenon still haunts us. Slow but steady greenhouse gas buildup caused by the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil and gas -- is a real threat to the well-being of future generations. Not only environmentalists but analysts from the U.S. military to the insurance industry are warning that extreme weather, ecological damage and rising sea levels will

impose painful costs on our economy in the coming decades -- unless we act now. Wind energy and other forms of renewable power generation can ease those risks. That benefit should be rewarded through a simple mechanism that is long overdue: an annually rising carbon fee on fossil fuels, with every dollar rebated back to the American people as a monthly payment or tax credit. This will encourage efficiency and lower consumption but, more important, will unleash a flood of pent-up capital for investment in clean energy technologies. It's good to see that Midwestern policymakers are learning to overcome "not in my backyard" objections and moving forward with offshore wind farms. Let's support them with a national clean energy policy, for a safe and secure future. Kenneth O'Hare, Perry Recker, Jay Mulberry and Richard Knight, Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicago

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

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 climatechange-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

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

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 “cleanenergy 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

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 jumpstart on the inevitable clean energy economy of the future. Erica Flock Reston, Va.

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/citizens climate

DECEMBER 27, 2011

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

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

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011

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, JULY 6, 2012

OPED, JULY 5, 2012

Reynolds: Last call at Club Fossil Fuel By Mark Reynolds In Duluth, Minn., the bar tab at Club Fossil Fuel came to $100 million. Never heard of Club Fossil Fuel? It's the most popular franchise on the planet, everyone's favorite watering hole for well over a century, because the addictive libations — coal, oil and gas — are relatively cheap. Cheap, that is, until you factor in the hidden costs, like asthma and other respiratory diseases from air pollution or the military costs to secure our supplies of oil from the Middle East. And now global warming, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, is adding to the bill in the form of floods, droughts and other extreme-weather events that are becoming more frequent and intense in a warming world. Those warmer temperatures, scientists tell us, are "juicing" the atmosphere — literally— because warmer air holds more water. What goes up, of course, eventually comes down, and in Duluth what came down was nearly 10 inches of rain in a day and a half that caused historic flooding. Damage to roads, utilities and parks will take an estimated $100 million to repair, a hefty sum for a city of 89,000. Floods are nothing new, of course. Just ask Noah. What is new is that climate change has loaded the dice and increased not only the odds of floods occurring, but also the severity of those floods. And floods aren't the only item being added to the bill at Club Fossil Fuel. In Colorado, the most destructive fire in state history has burned more than 80,000 acres, engulfed more than 200 homes and has already cost more than $20 million to bring under control. Like floods, wildfires are

nothing new, but drought conditions brought on by climate change have made forests more incendiary. Another factor that's turned trees into kindling is the staggering infestation of pine beetles that, thanks to warmer temperatures, are reproducing twice a year instead of once. The folks in Duluth and Colorado are not the only ones picking up the tab for the destructive consequences of fossil fuel usage. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each totaling more than $1 billion in damage. Insured losses from those disasters totaled $44 billion. Insurance companies, which have to adjust our premiums to cover those losses, are well aware of the economic impact climate change is exerting. "From our industry's perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear," said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. "We need a national policy related to climate and weather." More precisely, we need a policy that will end our addiction to fossil fuels. Like an alcoholic who has been on a bender longer than he can remember, we need a 12-step program that will restore sanity and order to our currently unsustainable lifestyles. But how do we detox without administering a fatal shock to our economic system? We can do that with a revenue-neutral price on fossil fuels known as carbon fee and dividend. A gradually increasing fee is placed

on carbon-based fuels, starting at $10 or $15 per ton of the carbon dioxide those fuels will emit when burned. The fee would increase $10 per ton each year, sending a price signal to private investors that wind, solar and geothermal will be more profitable than coal and oil. This market-based approachâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; a market in which the hidden costs of fossil fuels are accounted for â&#x20AC;&#x201D; would spur a rapid transition to clean energy and energy efficiency. Where does the dividend come in? Instead of taking the money from the carbon fee and spending it on more

government programs, the revenue would be returned to the American people in per capita shares, thereby offsetting the increased cost of energy associated with the fee. To protect American businesses from unfair competition, border adjustments would be made on goods from nations that do not have equivalent carbon pricing. Last fall, the International Energy Agency warned that we have only five years before we lock in the carbon-intensive infrastructure that will make the process of global warming irreversible. Given what's at stake, it's time for last call at Club Fossil Fuel.

2012 07 05 Richmond Times-Dispatch Reynolds OPED Last call at Club Fossil Fuel 2012-07-05-Richmond-Times-Dispatch-Reynolds-OPED-Last-call-at-Club-Fossil-Fuel

BLOG, JULY 5, 2012

government. If you think it's time to be piloting Spaceship Earth, then join us in Washington this month. Steve Valk, communications Citizens Climate Lobby Atlanta

director,

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JULY 5, 2012

Properly placed fee could promote use of cleaner fuels Floods, heat waves, storms and wildfires dominate the news. But the media seems incapable of connecting the dots. We are setting record high temperatures by the thousands and recent record highs out number lows by a factor of 10. Last winter was one of the warmest on record and nine of the 10 warmest years on record occurred between 2000 and 2011, a period of near record minimum solar activity. All indications that climate change is real and in line with the conclusion of most climate scientists: carbon dioxide is the cause.

We must account for the negative externalities of fossil fuel use. Economists know that ignoring the true cost of a commodity means overproduction and excess use. Placing a fee on CO2 will redress this imbalance, stimulating investment in clean alternatives. Rebating the fee to the public will cushion the shock of temporary cost increases as we transition into a new economy. This simple, transparent and market driven approach will free up Adam Smith's invisible hand to act as intended. Jim Thrall Anchorage

2012 07 05 AnchorageDN Thrall LTE Properly placed fee could promote use of cleaner fuels

OPED, JULY 4, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 30, 2012

We’ll adapt? Evidence of global warming and climate change in Kansas and surrounding states was documented in several recent Journal-World articles. Temperatures reached 109 to 115 degrees in parts of western Kansas while wildfires blazed over farmland in central, north-central, and northwestern Kansas. Colorado wildfires have raged out of control and forced evacuations of many homes, and over 1,000 record temperatures were set in a single week. Rather impressive for this early in the year, and the current weather system shows no sign of rapid improvement. We can all hope that the rest of summer will provide rain and cooler temperatures, but the long-term climate outlook is likely to worsen in the years and decades to come. What will become of America’s breadbasket if these conditions persist? If the Ogallala

aquifer should no longer be capable of sustaining irrigation in the high plains and dry-land farming becomes problematic, our abundant food supply may not be as reliable as we have all thought. As sea levels rise more rapidly on the East Coast and other evidence of global warming increases, the fossil fuel industry continues its head-in-the-sand approach. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says “society will be able to adapt.” This is the same kind of subterfuge that the tobacco industry used to assure us that cigarettes were safe until irrefutable evidence was finally obtained. My concern is that by time irrefutable evidence is accepted by Mr. Tillerson, life on this planet will no longer exist as we have known it. George Brenner

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 30, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 29, 2012

Time to put a price on carbon

[two letters]

Re: Support growing for carbon tax, Opinion, June 29 How disturbing that the best available defence against accelerating climate change is wilfully ignored by our federal government. Geoff Dembicki reminds us that widespread support for a price on carbon will only increase as Canadians come to appreciate its much-needed benefits. The world has moved on since our rejection of the Liberal party’s Green Shift. It’s time to insist that our current government establish a fair and equitable mechanism that puts a price on carbon. Sheila Murray Toronto

Despite industry support and expert advice in support of a carbon tax, Stephen Harper dismisses it as “crazy economics.” And yet a carbon tax, particularly one that includes a dividend that goes back to the people, is at its heart sound conservative policy. A rising tax on carbon is transparent and predictable, doesn’t require a lot of bureaucracy and is revenue neutral. To my mind, crazy economics is hitching our fiscal wagon to a volatile commodity like the oilsands. A carbon tax will send a market signal to diversify our economy through innovative sustainable development. There’s nothing crazy about that. Cheryl McNamara Toronto

OPED, JUNE 29, 2012

Last call for Club Fossil Fuel By Mark Reynolds In North Florida, the bar tab at Club Fossil Fuel will be in the millions, and that is just a start.

Never heard of Club Fossil Fuel? It’s the most popular franchise on the planet, everyone’s favorite watering hole for well over a century, because the addictive libations — coal, oil and gas — are relatively cheap. Cheap, that is, until you factor in the hidden costs, like asthma and other respiratory diseases from air pollution or the military costs to secure our supplies of oil from the Middle East. And now global warming, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, is adding to the bill in the form of floods, droughts and other extremeweather events that are becoming more frequent and intense in a warming world. Those warmer temperatures, scientists tell us, are “juicing” the atmosphere — literally — because warmer air holds more water. What goes up, of course, eventually comes down, and in Duluth what came down was nearly 10 inches of rain in a day and a half that caused historic flooding. Damage to roads, utilities and parks will take an estimated $100 million to repair, a hefty sum for a city of 89,000.

Floods are nothing new, of course. Just ask Noah. What is new is that climate change has loaded the dice and increased not only the odds of floods occurring, but also the severity of those floods. And floods aren’t the only item being added to the bill at Club Fossil Fuel. In Colorado, the most destructive fire in state history has burned more than 80,000 acres, has engulfed more than 200 homes and has already cost more than $20 million to bring under control. Like floods, wildfires are nothing new, but drought conditions brought on by climate change have made forests more incendiary. Another factor that’s turned trees into kindling is the staggering infestation of pine beetles that, thanks to warmer temperatures, are reproducing twice a year instead of once. The folks in Duluth and Colorado are not the only ones picking up the tab. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each totaling more than $1 billion in damage. Insurance companies, which have to adjust our premiums to cover those losses, are well aware of the economic

than coal and oil. This market-based impact climate change is exerting. “From approach — a market in which the hidden our industry’s perspective, the footprints costs of fossil fuels are accounted for — of climate change are around us and the will spur a rapid transition to clean trend of increasing damage to property energy and energy efficiency. and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Where does the dividend come in? Nutter, president of the Reinsurance The money from the carbon fee is Association of America. “We need a returned to the American people in pernational policy related to climate and capita shares, thereby offsetting the weather.” increased cost of energy associated with More precisely, we need a policy that the fee. Border adjustments can be made will end our addiction to fossil fuels. But on goods from nations that do not have how do we de-tox without administering equivalent carbon pricing. a fatal shock to our economic system? Last fall, the International Energy We can do that with a revenue-neutral Agency warned that we have only five price on fossil fuels known as carbon fee years before we lock in the carbonand dividend. A gradually increasing fee is intensive infrastructure that will make placed on carbon-based fuels. The fee the process of global warming would increase each year, sending a price irreversible. Given what’s at stake, it’s signal to private investors that wind, solar time for last call at Club Fossil Fuel. and geothermal will be more profitable Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, JUNE 28, 2012

Mark Reynolds: It’s time for last call at Club Fossil Fuel In Duluth, Minn., the bar tab at Club Fossil Fuel came to $100 million. Never heard of Club Fossil Fuel? It’s the most popular franchise on the planet, everyone’s favorite watering hole for well over a century, because the addictive libations — coal, oil and gas — are relatively cheap. Cheap, that is, until you factor in the hidden costs, like asthma and other respiratory diseases from air pollution or the military costs to secure our supplies of oil from the Middle East. And now global warming, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, is adding to the bill in the form of floods, droughts and other extremeweather events that are becoming more frequent and intense in a warming world. Those warmer temperatures, scientists tell us, are “juicing” the atmosphere — literally — because warmer air holds more water. What goes up, of course, eventually comes down, and in Duluth what came down was nearly 10 inches of rain in a day and a half that caused historic flooding. Damage to roads, utilities and parks will take an estimated $100 million to repair, a hefty sum for a city of 89,000. Floods are nothing new, of course. Just ask Noah. What is new is that climate change has loaded the dice and increased not

only the odds of floods occurring, but also the severity of those floods. And floods aren’t the only item being added to the bill at Club Fossil Fuel. In Colorado, the most destructive fire in state history has burned more than 80,000 acres, has engulfed more than 200 homes and has already cost more than $20 million to bring under control. Like floods, wildfires are nothing new, but drought conditions brought on by climate change have made forests more incendiary. Another factor that’s turned trees into kindling is the staggering infestation of pine beetles that, thanks to warmer temperatures, are reproducing twice a year instead of once. The folks in Duluth and Colorado are not the only ones picking up the tab. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each totaling more than $1 billion in damage. Insurance companies, which have to adjust our premiums to cover those losses, are well aware of the economic impact climate change is exerting. “From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “We need a

national policy related to climate and weather.” More precisely, we need a policy that will end our addiction to fossil fuels. But how do we de-tox without administering a fatal shock to our economic system? We can do that with a revenue-neutral price on fossil fuels known as carbon fee and dividend. A gradually increasing fee is placed on carbon-based fuels. The fee would increase each year, sending a price signal to private investors that wind, solar and geothermal will be more profitable than coal and oil. This market-based approach — a market in which the hidden costs of fossil fuels are accounted for — will spur a rapid transition to clean energy and energy efficiency.

Where does the dividend come in? The money from the carbon fee is returned to the American people in percapita shares, thereby offsetting the increased cost of energy associated with the fee. Border adjustments can be made on goods from nations that do not have equivalent carbon pricing. Last fall, the International Energy Agency warned that we have only five years before we lock in the carbonintensive infrastructure that will make the process of global warming irreversible. Given what’s at stake, it’s time for last call at Club Fossil Fuel. Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 27, 2012

Carbon tax would level the field In her recent guest opinion (“No level playing field among energy providers”), Barabara Eckstein describes former Rep. Bob Inglis from South Carolina as having conservative credentials. With Inglis’ lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 93.5 percent, this is an understatement. Although I am nearly polar opposite ideologically, I can find common ground with Inglis. Inglis believes in accountability — that we should hold everyone accountable for the result of their actions. For example, when studies prove that coal-fired power plants are responsible for 23,600 premature deaths in the United States, Inglis believes that conservatives should hold them accountable. His proposed remedy is to level the playing field with a carbon tax on their emissions; the increased cost of energy counterbalanced by lower taxes. I support a similar idea, “fee and dividend” that charges a fee on carbon as it enters the market and returns this to consumers as a dividend. The sense of fairness that supports the “level playing field” is, I believe, a core American value that cuts across ideological divides. Depending on our particular political stripe, we may disagree with how to get there, but we can all agree that it is the right thing to do. Mark NeuCollins Solon

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 27, 2012

What kind of world are we leaving to children? What sort of world are we leaving behind for our children and grandchildren? They shouldn’t have to deal with the mess we’ve created, and the only way to preserve a livable planet is by weaning our civilization off fossil fuels. A revenue-neutral price on carbon — with money returned to the public — would allow us to detox without a fatal shock to our economy. Steve Valk Atlanta

OPED, JUNE 25, 2012

Healthy future may lie with carbon fee In the short-attention-span society in which we live, little consideration is given to the long-term future. That changes, of course, when we look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren and start to contemplate what the world has in store for them in their lifetimes. Those thoughts were no doubt with the heads of state and other representatives gathering in Brazil last week for the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, titled “The Future We Want.” At Rio+20, as the conference was called, they discussed how we’ll meet basic needs on a planet where population continues to rise and resources dwindle. The areas of concern at the meeting — jobs, cities, food, energy, water, oceans and disasters — shared a common nemesis: climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels. This change of climate brings drought that decreases crop yields and shrinks glaciers that provide water for millions of people. It also intensifies disasters that create “climate refugees,” and it turns the oceans more acidic, threatening the base of the aquatic food chain. Back at home, America’s carbon energy tab is paid for with lost work days, premature deaths, property damage from violent storms and fires, failed crops and droughts. Kaiser Permanante, one of America’s largest health-care providers, acknowledges that climate change is threatening its mission: to improve health. How so? Disasters will require hospitals to prepare for large numbers of injured people; respiratory diseases will increase; diseasecarrying insects will move farther north; there will be other factors that “we don’t know yet.” Kaiser is responding by investing in renewable energy that drastically reduces greenhouse gases. Can the United States take a similar stand and adopt a policy that will reduce our carbon emissions? We need a market-based solution that will help our economy, protect American businesses from foreign competition, be simple

and transparent enough for all to understand, and encourage other countries to follow suit. The Save Our Climate Act, H.R 3242, introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., calls for a revenue-neutral fee on carbon-based fuels that returns the money to the American people. This approach is called carbon fee and dividend. The fee is placed on the amount of carbon dioxide a fuel will emit when burned, starting at $10 a ton and increasing by $10 a ton each year. As the price of clean energy becomes competitive with coal, oil and gas, renewable energy and a host of new green industries will flourish across the country and bring good jobs to every community. The “dividend” part of this solution takes the economic sting out of rising energy costs associated with the fee. The money collected is returned to the public as a per capita payment. To protect American businesses, border adjustments would be imposed on goods from nations that don’t have an equivalent carbon tax. Even if Stark’s bill is not passed in this Congress, a similar, bipartisan bill needs to be brought up early in the next Congress. Sen. Lamar Alexander has shown us, with his firm stand on clean air in Tennessee, that bipartisan leadership is still possible. Rio+20 may not have achieved a binding agreement on sustainable development, but the United States can help put the world on a path that averts catastrophe by putting a revenue-neutral price on carbon pollution. Teresa Campbell and Pam Jones are co-leaders of the Nashville chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 25, 2012

Romney and Energy Re “Energy Etch A Sketch” (editorial, June 17): You note the inconsistency on climate change between Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts and Mitt Romney the presidential candidate. In fact, the best first step to address climate change is a conservative solution, to correct today’s distorted energy market. Subsidies for coal, oil and gas dwarf the subsidies that renewables receive by hundreds of billions of dollars. We should remove these market-distorting subsidies and price carbon to reflect the very real costs to our health, security and environment. This would bring us closer to a market that is actually free.

The revenue raised should be returned to Americans. After all, we already pay the price. Zero percent of the revenue should go to the government. Freeing the market in this way is the right first step; it is a conservative first step, and it is one that Mr. Romney the candidate should get behind. Daniel Richter La Jolla The writer is a volunteer with the Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 24, 2012

Old king coal losing his crown It's amazing to see how fast coal is falling as a fuel source for electricity generation in the U.S. ("US coal use falling fast," YDR June 13). Thanks mostly to a supply glut of "cheap" natural gas, coal continues to plummet as a fuel source and now supplies 36 percent of the country's energy needs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, down from 44 percent a year ago. This demonstrates how fast things can change when the economics of alternate fuel sources change. But as we see now, not all the costs for this "cheap" natural gas are included in the price. Fracking for natural gas has hidden costs, including contaminated wells and streams, spills, earthquakes, more air pollution and methane releases, causing climate change, explosions and ruined landscapes resulting in loss of tourism. By switching from coal to natural gas, we are merely jumping from one sinking ship to another. Natural gas is methane, a finite resource and greenhouse gas with 105 times the heat trapping capability of carbon dioxide.

It's time to invest in clean, renewable energy that is sustainable for future generations. A new report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory finds that renewable energy sources could supply 80 percent of U.S. electricity demand by 2050, just by using technologies commercially available today. If Congress would set energy policies that encourage renewables and move us away from burning finite fossil fuels that are causing the planet to warm, we could see a drastic amount of change for the better in our lifetimes. It just so happens there is legislation already introduced to do just that. HR 3242 "The Save Our Climate Act" puts a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions and returns 100 percent of the revenue back to every American citizen. Contact Rep. Platts and let him know we want policies that better our environment, not despoil it. Ask him to cosponsor HR 3242. JON CLARK CONEWAGO TOWNSHIP

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 24, 2012

Column failed to include health risks of fracturing Re: “Florida relies on fracking” (My View, June 21). Kevin Doyle’s column, extolling the virtues of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract natural gas, omits an important part of the story. It’s a potent polluter. According to Cornell professor Robert Howarth, in an April 2011 study with colleagues published in Climatic Change letters, methane leakage from the process would outweigh any benefits of shale natural gas as a bridge fuel in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. The authors contend that as much as 7.9 percent of the methane — a potent greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than CO2 —e nters the atmosphere during the lifetime of unconventional gas extraction.

Because of the methane leakage, over a span of 20 years — an important time span given climate tipping points — shale gas is even worse for the atmosphere than burning coal. These findings were challenged (do publicists for fossil fuels ever dispute each others’ “findings”?) by another group of Cornell scientists, but rebutted by the Howarth group, which noted that their calculations were in the range of EPA estimates. They plan further studies on the subject. Let’s remember the difference between fossil fuel sales and science, no matter how seductive the message. LEN ADAMS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 22 2012

Renewable energy is plentiful, dependable In his letter, "Do the math: renewable won't cut it," Corbin Dixon brought up the effectiveness of renewable energy. Several studies have shown that renewable energy is more than capable of sustaining our energy needs. A study conducted by the Rocky Mountain Institute shows that a 90-square square mile area covered with solar panels could produce all of the annual electricity the U.S. currently needs. Using this data, if you covered vered all of New York City's rooftops (35 square miles), it could provide a little over one-third third of the U.S. electricity. Another recent study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that onshore wind alone, using only available land at windy spots, ts, could generate 9.5 times more electricity than the nation used in 2010. Renewable energy has also been shown to be dependable. Energy would not just come

from a single wind turbine or solar panel, but a whole system of wind turbines and solar panels connected nnected over hundreds or even thousands of miles. A lack of sunlight or wind in one area can be made up with energy provided in another area. Renewable energy has the potential to become the main source of energy in our country. Unlike the fossil fuels thatt currently supply our energy demands, resources such as solar and wind energy are limitless and free. After the initial investment in harnessing these resources, few costs will remain as they continue to provide all of our energy needs. Switching our focuss from fossil fuels to renewable energy would be better not only for the environment but also for our wallets. Jordan Grubbs Sandy Hook

OPED, JUNE 22, 2012

Barbara Eckstein: No level playing field among energy providers Distant family and friends still assume Iowa is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary. I think of their insistence on this point (even if they have never been in Iowa) when I hear the metaphor “level playing field.” There is nothing wrong with an honest to goodness flat terrain or level playing field. But the image is clung to and the metaphor is so often used when the level field imagined is not level at all. These days the oil, gas and coal companies argue that the energy playing field would be leveled if subsidies were not provided to renewable energy development and consumption. Every time a renewable energy incentive expires and its supporters argue again for support, it looks as though the renewable energy producers and consumers are asking for special favors. Meanwhile the oil, gas and coal companies are enjoying ongoing, automatically renewed subsidies embedded in the tax code, the result of decades of lobbying the U.S. Congress. In 2011 alone, oil, gas and coal companies spent $167 million lobbying the federal government. Between 2002-2008, the federal government gave the mature fossil fuel industry more than $72 billion in subsidies while investments by the government in the emerging renewable industry totaled $12.2 billion. The fossil fuel industry doesn’t need taxpayer subsidies. In 2011, the top five oil companies made a $137 billion profit. In the first quarter of 2012, they earned $33.5 billion or $368 million per day.

Not included in the numbers above are the costs to human health and health care, as well as environmental degradation and accelerated climate change. The true cost of carbon is not a new topic any more than 2012 marks the first time I have told my relatives about Iowa’s ravines and river bluffs. In 2009, six-term Rep. Bob Ingles, a Republican from South Carolina with conservative credentials, proposed a tax swap bill that would hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the full effects of their product. Ingles proposed a payroll tax deduction as a means to balance the effects of pricing carbon at its true cost, without subsidies, without hidden subsidies from those who must respond to the impact of carbon on human health, environmental health and planetary health. In an online presentation last month to members of Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan organization, Ingles explained that he doesn’t have a solar water heater on his roof because his subsidized energy is so cheap. Without an appropriate “price signal,” he said, I don’t innovate. Ingles’s bill in 2009 proposed that the price of carbon be graduated to rise to $100 per ton over 30 years, a modest proposal and one he was willing to accelerate if sufficient consumer tax savings could keep the proposal revenue neutral. The details reveal that Iowa isn’t flat and the energy playing field cannot be made level by counting some costs and not others.

Knowing the terrain of Iowa City, I walk on the ridges and spare myself the effort of running downhill only to climb up the other side. Knowing the details of pricing carbon, we can pick the best routes forward.

Barbara Eckstein is a member of Iowa City Climate Advocates, which meets the Tuesday after the first Saturday of every month at 7 p.m. in Trinity Episcopal Church.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 21, 2012

Carbon-tax memo According to John Baird, Canadians have rejected the carbon tax (Ottawa Kills The Emissions Messenger â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 20). Did he get the memo that B.C. implemented such a tax and, based on a 2011 poll, that almost 70 per cent of British Columbians support it?

The experts tell us that to meet emissions targets and become a global leader in innovative clean energy technologies, we must price carbon. If only the government would listen. Cheryl McNamara Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 20, 2012

Omnibus bill shows contempt for Parliament Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government was determined to push through the omnibus Bill C-38, with the minimum of input from our elected Parliament. By using time allocations to limit debate, the Conservatives showed their contempt for Parliament. It's the same kind of contempt that the Conservatives have repeatedly shown Canadians who are concerned about conserving our environment. Bill C-38 does a lot more than simply implement the federal budget. It eviscerates many of Canada's historic environmental laws, and establishes a new regime that promotes unrestrained economic development at the expense of environmental protection. For starters, Bill C-38 will repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, one of the foundational pieces of legislation, which for decades has required an assessment of impacts when development is proposed. In place of the Act, the Conservatives are offering new legislation that will severely restrict the required assessment of environmental impacts, and limit opportunities for input from the public and First Nations. The Fisheries Act will also be gutted by the omnibus bill, as fish habitat protections will be removed. Tom Siddon, the former Tory minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Brian Mulroney's government, expressed his outrage over this regressive step to managing the economically important fisheries resource.

The public is starting to realize that the Harper Conservatives really are at war with all Canadians who are interested in seeing our environmental resources protected for the use of future generations. Along with cabinet ministers on-going references to environmentalists as being "radicals" and "extremists", recently we witnessed Peter Kent, the minister of Environment, claim that certain environmental groups have been laundering money. When pressed by the media for specifics, Kent refused to identify which groups he believes are engaging in illegal activities, thus leaving his smear to taint all those engaged in promoting conservation efforts. It's important that mega-projects are developed right the first time, and that Canadian taxpayers aren't left holding the bag when expensive remediation is necessary due to environmental oversights, predevelopment. The Harper Conservatives believe our environmental regulations are standing in the way of economic growth. That's nonsense. The real threat to Canada's economy is the undoing of environmental protections in the name of unrestrained resource exploitation. We and our children will be paying for the contempt shown to the natural environment by the Conservatives long after the current prime minister retires. Steve May Greater Sudbury Steve May is an officer of the Sudbury Federal Green Party Association.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 18, 2012

Today’s letters: Readers’ sage advice for high school graduates BY Paul Russell

Be kind to others You are entering a world of challenges. Look at the big picture. Humanity has reached the limits to growth. Work with others to conserve what you value most. Natural ecosystems, which support all life on earth, must be protected. Your creativity and energy are needed for the transition to a future of renewable energy and sustainable solutions. Sustain yourself with wisdom, with a strong sense of ethics. Nurture positive relationships with those you love. Lyn Adamson Toronto.

Other advice The poor state of the planet and democracy that you will inherit from us is primarily due to our demonization of political discussion and apathy towards all things government. This has served nobody but those with strong public relations departments. Look beyond the spin. Criticize and don’t be afraid to be criticized. Engage in open political dialogue. Bring politics back to the dinner table and most important of all — don’t trust politicians! Ian Edwards Toronto

EDITORIAL, JUNE 17, 2012

Can't we agree to do something about climate change? By MIKE JONES Associate Editor The resistance to any sort of compromise in America persists. It is no more evident than the disagreement over climate change. In Virginia, it can't even be referred to as "climate change." It is now "recurrent flooding." That is the term the Virginia Legislature came upon in order to agree to even discuss the problems plaguing that state. In the last 100 years, the Virginia coast has seen a 14-inch rise in sea level. That, combined with some wicked rain, has caused the flooding. Whether the Virginians eventually settle their squabble and attempt to solve their problems remains to be seen. It does, however, illustrate the problem the entire country has when it comes to "global warming," "climate change" or "recurrent flooding." We can't even decide what we want to call it. There are two very stubborn sides in this debate. There is the great majority of scientists, including those with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who believe that the Earth is changing, getting warmer, and believe that humans have something to do with it. Changing The other side, which also claims to have opposing scientific evidence, says the Earth is simply going through a natural shift in climate and humans have little to do with it.

There are some in this camp who deny that anything is happening at all. Those are the folks who pointed out in 2010 that the record snow storms that hit Tulsa prove that the Earth is not warming, but cooling. They can't quite put together the fact that warming in other parts of the world can cause heavy snowfall and flooding in other parts. Incidentally, I didn't hear much from that group following the warm winter of 2011-2012. Which brings us to compromise, or the lack thereof. Let's not be naive. Political turbulence has been a part of this country since its founding. In fact, there have been some pretty nasty disagreements, complete with name-calling and duels, in our history. On the other hand, there have been some important compromises that have had enormous effect on the country. None was bigger than one of the first. In 1790, the country was just getting on its feet, or trying. Historic compromise One of the pressing topics in postRevolutionary War America was the debt that states had accumulated over the course of the war. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was pushing for the federal government to assume the debts of the states, thereby removing the possibility of default to a foreign country by the states. It was more

complicated than that but I'll leave it at that for the sake of brevity. Hamilton was at odds with James Madison, who controlled the bill in Congress and was not fond of it. A dinner party was arranged by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson at his home to allow the two to come to what he hoped would be some sort of agreement - a compromise. They did. The assumption bill passed Congress and, some historians believe, saved the country. Of course, there have been others, including the Missouri Compromise, and behind-doors finagling by President Lyndon Johnson that pushed through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare. President Ronald Reagan was renowned for his ability to persuade his opponents to his side through compromise. The disagreement over climate change does not have the immediacy of the assumption bill or the Civil Rights Act. The country is not going to be swallowed by the ocean next year. The immediacy comes in starting now to do something about it. The science, endorsed by NASA and the NOAA, among other credible scientific groups, clearly shows that the climate is changing and that humans, while not the sole reason, certainly have a hand in it. The average global temperature has risen by more than 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. The NOAA says the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record. Those same scientists say that such changes and the warming charted over the last 50 years, cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Yes, all scientists agree that the Earth is going through a natural cycle of change. That cannot be prevented. Humankind has adapted to such changes since the beginning. But humans now have the intelligence and the capability to try to lessen or slow down, or at least not speed up, the inevitable. It doesn't take much to make drastic changes. Every two degrees Fahrenheit of warming results in: reduced crop production; an increase in heavy precipitation events,

such as the flooding in Virginia; an increase in wildfires, as in the Southwest the last few years, and as much as a 10 percent decrease in stream flows in some river basins, including the Arkansas River basin. Breath in, breath out It is clear that humans have an impact. Carbon dioxide is important to the Earth's natural carbon cycle. We were all taught in grade school that we exhale carbon dioxide and that helps plants grow and produce oxygen for us to breathe. That balances out over time. Now, however, other human carbon dioxide emissions are a part of the natural cycle. And that is where the problem arises and where a lot of the disagreement begins. And this is where I long for common sense and compromise. Can't we all agree that, never mind the amount, humans are contributing to the change in the Earth? And can't we all agree that the Earth is going through a natural cycle? There are more people on this planet and that population is growing daily. The more people, the more cars, the more plants needed to generate power, etc. Again, this is not going to dramatically affect anyone reading this right now. By the end of this century, it will be noticeable. I keep hearing the chant that we can't leave our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren with enormous debt to pay. That's admirable. Can we live with ourselves knowing that we had the chance to preserve the Earth for them and passed it by because we couldn't agree to call it "climate change" or "recurrent flooding?" Isn't the future of the world something worth compromise? Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article. aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20120617_21 3_G6_Theres131266

OPED, JUNE 15, 2012

Carbon dioxide raising temperatures By David Folland In this image released by NOAA, Chris Carparelli, adjusts a glass flask that line the walls of an air sample processing room at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., Wednesday, May 30, 2012. Researchers at the lab measure the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in air sent in weekly from sites that are part of an international cooperative air sampling network. The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollution. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace, having years ago blown by the 350 mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. So far only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will soon follow. (NOAA, Will von Dauster, Associated Press)

Two weeks ago, my friends Chris and Shirley Herrera brought me a very special present from Hawaii. It wasn't the usual chocolate covered macadamia nuts or a pineapple; it was a little vial of air. Dr. John Barnes, station chief of the Mauna Loa Observatory on the Big Island, had given them the air sample taken on May 8, 2012. Because of the level of carbon dioxide in the bottle, I wasn't surprised when I read of the astounding heat records in Seth Borenstein's article ("Spring fever: U.S. smashes heat records for season," June 7). Stationed at a lofty 11,135 ft, the Mauna Loa Observatory has been documenting carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since 1958, the longest continual monitoring of an atmospheric greenhouse gas. The first carbon dioxide level to be recorded there was 316 parts per million, or ppm. We know from study of ice core samples that throughout human history prior to the

industrial revolution, the highest level was 280ppm. The carbon dioxide in the air sample I received was 397ppm. People have been talking about reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases for over 20 years. Summits have been held, and governments (excluding the United States) have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Many individuals, businesses and local governments have reduced their carbon footprints. Yet, atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to climb. In fact, in 2011, the Mauna Loa Observatory documented the biggest yearly jump since recording began. And this spring was the warmest ever recorded in U.S. history, smashing the prior record by 2 degrees. The effects of a warming climate are being seen in Utah, too. Here in the Wasatch, Utah climatologist Dr. Chris Gillies and his colleagues have shown that 9 percent of

precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow, compared to 40 years ago. Despite sound evidence to the contrary, many continue to hold to beliefs that the warming is part of a natural cycle. Unfortunately, one group that clings to this fantasy includes many Utah state and federal legislators. In fact, the Utah Legislature is on record as denying the existence of humancaused climate change with their 2010 Climate Change Joint Resolution, HJR012. Fortunately, there are many reasons to move to an economy powered by clean energy even if one is not convinced that climate change is a serious threat. Changing to clean energy will stimulate growth of jobs in the green economy, reduce air and water pollution, diversify our energy sources, eliminate our reliance on foreign oil and increase our national security. We need legislators who are willing to address the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, and as Jon Huntsman Jr.

advocated, let science guide our discussion. The upcoming elections give us an opportunity to choose representatives who are willing to face the challenge of climate change. One such candidate is Bill Barron, who is running for U.S. Senate on a platform of carbon fee and dividend. Bill would like to see a revenue-neutral tax on carbon at the source, with the proceeds returned 100 percent to the American people. Other candidates might not be so forthcoming with their energy positions, so one can ask, "How do you propose to deal with the rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?" We can elect leaders who will take the bold actions necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that one day I will receive another bottle of Mauna Loa air with a lower level of carbon dioxide. David Folland is a retired pediatrician who volunteers for Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 14, 2012

Letters: cap and trade Thank you for drawing attention to how the state will spend AB-32 revenues. Your article “How did we get here?” states, “Global warming is believed by many, but not all, climate experts.” Science and belief should not be confused. President Lincoln established the National Academy of Sciences so we could get our science from the best scientists in the world. The academy has spoken and their report is emphatic about the impact of manmade CO2 emissions on global warming. Science, unlike talk radio, has to hold up.

The antibiotic has to work and the airplane has to fly, whereas radio personalities can promote the same conclusions no matter what facts are presented. Peer-reviewed science supports the NAS report. So, yes, there is some controversy. One one side you have the scientists and the level of integrity it takes to do their work and on the other you have “belief”-based radio personalities. I suggest we heed the scientists. Mark Reynolds Executive Director, Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 13, 2012

MP Sweet should vote against budget bill Protesters call C-38 bill undemocratic (June 9) Prime Minister Stephen Harper fears environmental organizations, scientists, and the science behind climate change and the degradation of our environment. He fears the corporations and industries that dictate the Conservative agenda. It is cowardly to try to pass a budget bill that sneaks through countless pieces of mostly environmental legislation reviewed only by Parliamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s finance committee to the exclusion of environmental experts. Last Friday, Conservative MP David Sweet displayed the same cowardly behaviour with a constituency office surrounded by no trespassing signs and protected by police

officers. We hope Sweet can show he is motivated by his dedication to democratic values, and his constituency. I invite him to attend an all-party public forum to explore why these parties do or do not support the omnibus bill. I strongly encourage Sweet to vote against the party line and defeat Bill C38. The public is invited to attend the Budget Public Forum taking place June 16 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at Dundas Town Hall Auditorium, 60 Main Street, Dundas. Elysia Petrone Hamilton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 13, 2012

Deniers spread climate myths Re: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Whose experts will advise PM?â&#x20AC;? by Tom Harris, Letters, June 11. Tom Harris once again misleads those unaware of the truth on climate change. These are familiar tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades to hide the damage of smoking. Harris signs his name as executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, an organization with known ties to the fossil fuel industry. He states climate change is a controversial issue, when 97 per cent of climate scientists state it is unequivocally because of human activity. We have known for 150 years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The people who appeared before the Senate committee on climate in December were not climate experts, although three were scientists. They are known climate-change deniers, among the very small three per cent of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. They confuse many by blaming it on things like the sun and water vapour. These are absolute myths. These deniers are not the ones our government should be listening to. Victor Dorian Edmonton

ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 13, 2012

Solar energy has more benefits Thanks to Editor Edenloff and the Echo Press for your May 16 story "Bonding bill includes bright news for solar energy future." Your article points out that solar energy development carries significant benefits for all of us â&#x20AC;&#x201C; jobs for the jobless and reduced utility bills for public buildings and thus for us taxpayers. You might also have listed investment opportunities, healthier air, cleaner water, and less haze over the Boundary Waters. The legislation provides for all public building projects financed by bonding to use 5 percent of the project costs for solar photovoltaic and solar thermal systems. More solar equals less coal. That's good for the thousands of asthma sufferers. That's good for jobs since analysis shows that solar and wind create four to seven jobs per each million invested, while oil, coal and natural gas provide less than one job per million of

invested capital. All in all, a smart move, since over time these projects pay for themselves. This kind of government policy costs nothing and is good for everybody. But not all government help is useful. Time was when tax forgiveness for the oil companies made sense; markets were uncertain and a growing country needed to ensure that oil attracted investment capital. That time is now past and 70 percent of Americans support eliminating subsidies and the unfair advantage they grant oil over solar and wind. It is important for the public to know that repeated attempts to eliminate the subsidies have been beaten back and sadly, a recent attempt to eliminate the subsidies was defeated by the representatives of oil in the House. Sad day for the taxpayers. Jeanne Johnson, Citizens Climate Lobby, Alexandria

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 13, 2012

Deep concern and alarm over Bill C-38 I am writing out of deep concern and alarm about the direction the Harper government is taking with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;stealth bombâ&#x20AC;? of its omnibus budget bill, C-38. There are many reasons Canadians should be concerned about C-38, the most sweeping overhaul of Canadian legislation ever contemplated in one piece of legislation. Bill C-38 throws out 60 existing federal statutes, including environmental protection, and shuts down the Environmental Lakes area in our region, an internationally recognized centre for freshwater research. Instead of following the established procedures for making such

sweeping changes, which would allow for public debate and input, this government is trying to govern by stealth by loading the sweeping changes into a budget bill. This way there is no scrutiny of these changes by Parliament and the Canadian public, almost as if this government has something to hide. Canadians, including those in Northern Ontario, cherish our natural environment almost as much as our democratic freedoms. With Bill C-38, the Harper government is well on its way to destroying both. Christine Penner Polle Red Lake, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 12, 2012

Bill C-38 Concerns I am writing out of deep concern and alarm about the direction the Harper government is taking with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;stealth bombâ&#x20AC;? of its omnibus budget bill, C-38. There are many reasons Canadians should be concerned about C-38, the most sweeping overhaul of Canadian legislation ever contemplated in one piece of legislation. Bill C-38 throws out 60 existing federal statutes, including environmental protection and shuts down the Environmental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, an internationally recognized centre for freshwater research. Instead of following the established procedures for making such sweeping changes, which would allow for

public debate and input, this government is trying to govern by stealth by loading the sweeping changes into a budget bill. This way there is no scrutiny of these changes by Parliament and the Canadian public, almost as if this government has something to hide. Canadians, including those in Northern Ontario, cherish our natural environment almost as much as our democratic freedoms. With Bill C-38, the Harper government is well on its way to destroying both. Christine Penner Polle, Concerned Canadian and mom Red Lake, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 12, 2012

Manning's stand haunts us today Re: "Mulcair accused of green hypocrisy; Federal NDP leader takes heat from Reform party founder," the Journal, June 10. Preston Manning calls Thomas Mulcair a hypocrite for saying the oilsands industry should adopt a polluter-pay principle, because Mulcair said nothing like that to the Quebec hydro industry when he was sustainable development minister in Jean Charest's government. As for forcing companies to assume environmental costs through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon levy, Manning says he agrees with the NDP leader. "I've argued that for years," he said in an interview. Manning might have been arguing that for years as president and chief executive of the Manning Centre, but he never argued that at all when he was in Parliament.

As described in the book Hot Air, Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge, Manning used any suggestion of a carbon tax to stir up opposition to it. He was skeptical of the science of global warming, believed it was not conclusive and when given the opportunity would quote scientists who doubted the link between humans and global warming, the book says. I'm glad that Manning is now in favour of internalizing environmental costs, yet saddened we are still haunted by his earlier position that he instilled into many members of the Reform party, including Stephen Harper. Peter Adamski Edmonton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 11, 2012

Ocean as barometer of climate change We owe a debt of gratitude to scientists like Andrew Dickson at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography for their tireless efforts to measure and track the subtle changes in our oceans that carry huge consequences in the future (“Scripps lab ensures quality control for climate research,” Local, June 11). Thanks to their work, we can prove that the increased emissions of carbon dioxide caused by our burning of fossil fuels is making the seas more acidic. This increased acidity threatens the existence of small, shellforming creatures that provide the base of the food chain in our oceans and support their ecosystems. With a billion people depending on marine

life for food, the world’s ability to feed itself depends on our ability to slow and reverse this destructive process. This means we must stop burning the coal, oil and gas that put more CO2 into our atmosphere and oceans. The best way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is with revenue-neutral price on carbon that shifts power generation and transportation to cleaner energy and fuels. Science has given us adequate warning of what’s in store if we continue along our current path. It is now up to us to heed that warning. Katy McCreery Citizens Climate Lobby Ocean Beach

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 11, 2012

World awaits U.S. leadership In the current issue of Nature, UC Davis professors Alan Hastings and Geerat Vermeij identify some of the severe changes that will come if we allow our environment to reach a tipping point. Theirs is one of many such warnings from scientists over many years. It is apparent our policymakers will do nothing until we, the voters, demand action. We need a federal energy policy to reduce greenhouse gas production, and the longer we wait, the more drastic action will be needed. As the upcoming Rio Conference will again demonstrate, other nations are willing to join in a global effort to solve a global problem. But their attempts are ineffectual until the world’s largest economy joins them. They are waiting for U.S. leadership.

We must show Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Reps. Mike Thompson and John Garamendi that we support their efforts. Urge them to co-sponsor the End Polluter Welfare Act (ending subsidies to fossil fuel) and the fee-and-dividend Save Our Climate Act (which would place a fee on carbon dioxide production with revenues returned to taxpayers as a dividend to offset increased fuel prices). Both bills move to reduce the grip of Big Oil and Big Coal on our government, to level the playing field and offer clean energy producers a chance to grow. Let’s think of our grandchildren. What will our legacy be if we could have stopped catastrophe but didn’t? Elisabeth Robbins Woodland

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 9, 2012

A fairly auspicious energy problem “A solar fairness debate” in the Times Business section, June 5, describes the dilemma that electric utilities face when their customers install solar electricity-generating equipment and feed their unneeded kilowatts onto the grid. Yet, considering the need for clean air and a stable climate, this is a welcome trend — especially when the solar electricity displaces a utility’s coal-generated electricity and thereby reduces emissions of air pollutants and climate-disrupting carbon dioxide. I dream of the day when utilities will not

have to burn any fuel to create electricity. Rather, they will be service companies — designing, installing and maintaining tailormade renewable-energy generation for their customers. Customers could be billed at rates and on schedules that they could afford, and we’d all be out of the fossil-fuel business. While the utilities and their customers are working out the fairness issue, I only wish that other economic problems were of an equally desirable kind. Ellie Whitney East Windsor

Kenora Daily Miner and News LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 9, 2012

MP doesn't speak to the issue Based on his comments to the Daily Miner and News, MP Greg Rickford seems to think that his office was swarmed on June 2 by a gang of littering misfits. In fact, the protesters who rallied last Saturday were a diverse group that included youth, senior citizens, and mothers with babes in arms â&#x20AC;&#x201D; all concerned about the direction of their government. Some left a few signs behind, desperately hoping the message would reach their Member of Parliament. As the host of the event, I was disappointed that Mr. Rickford did not speak to the issue at hand: the anti-environment, anti-democracy components of Bill C-38.

Instead, he chose to insult some of his most community-minded and politically engaged constituents. There is surely something amiss with a government whose primary political tactic is to discredit those with opposing views, while refusing to engage in constructive debate. I hope that in the future Mr. Rickford will break from this Harper tradition and instead acknowledge his constituentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; concerns. I hope he will view us not as an enemy, but as citizens he was elected to serve. Beth Turner Kenora

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 7, 2012

Climate change We were pleased to see the Tribune giving climate change the attention it deserves in "Extraordinary extremes" (Perspective, June 6). The two scientists who wrote the piece reminded us of how this woefully underreported issue is now starting to affect our everyday lives. Changes in the worldwide climate, caused by the rapid and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from our cars, trucks, power plants and factories, are increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. Skeptics argue that an individual storm system or extended heat wave cannot be blamed directly on climate change. But that argument is shattered by the observation, noted in the piece, that record high temperatures over the decade ending in 2010 exceeded record low temperatures by two to one. If that is not a trend, nothing is! Now it is time to stop arguing and act. Governments around the world, including the

U.S., have dithered and delayed for a generation. Individual actions, while laudable, are clearly not enough. The cap-and-trade bill that was proposed in 2009 to curtail emissions had too many complications and loopholes to be effective, even if it had passed the Senate. It is time to simply put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels, sending a price signal to consumers and the marketplace to deeply cut back on consumption and, more important, expand investment in renewable technologies, which would be free of that fee. The temporary cost burden of this action can be mitigated by rebating all of the proceeds back to the public, either by direct payment or by reducing other taxes. Nature has spoken. Do we have the character to answer? Kenneth O'Hare, Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby, Oak Park Elisabeth Solomon, Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicago

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 5, 2012

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, OPED, JUNE 4, 2012

Opinion: Corporate hush money silences the Democratic process By Times of Trenton guest opinion column

Express-Times Photo | LISA MASSEY | N .J. voting machines in a file photo. By Tony Giordano While reading Jeffrey Clement’s recent book “Corporations Are Not People,” I reluctantly had to take a break every so often to allow my blood pressure to subside. This powerful and timely book conveys some disturbing facts about the unchecked growth of corporate power in America — skyrocketing CEO compensation while average incomes stagnate; ever-increasing campaign donations and lobbying expenditures; and the insidious influence of money on election outcomes as well as legislative actions. The author reminds us that corporations were created by governments to be an economic tool, not a political animal. So, when you hear someone say government should stay out of the “free” market, you can remind

them that there would be no corporations without government. Succumbing to the ongoing corporate brainwashing campaign, more and more people, including presidential candidates, are repeating the misguided and offensive line: “Corporations are people.” How is it that, after 236 years as a republic, we have come to this unprecedented decree? What has suddenly changed to bring this about? Nothing — except the power of corporations. There are actually some pretty simple ways to tell that corporations aren’t people. For one, when they’re convicted of felonies, as BP, Exxon, GE, Koch Industries and countless more have been, no one goes to prison. And they don’t fight any of our numerous wars, though they do seem to profit mightily from them.

It’s significant that for most of our history, citizen believes his or her vote doesn’t matter, basic rights and freedoms were human rights. and it’s getting more and more difficult to Now they’ve been extended to corporations argue with that sad conviction. regardless of the destructive impact on If America is going to return to democracy, people’s fundamental rights. Two years ago, it may require a constitutional amendment to the Supreme Court’s shameful Citizens United reverse the plutocratic Citizens United decision allowed corporations for the first decision. While possible, that will be an uphill time to make unlimited and undisclosed fight. But the only reason a Congress member campaign donations. or legislator would oppose this is because he Amazingly, for a carefully selected set of or she has been influenced by all the elite jurists, this decision failed to recognize corporate money in politics via unchecked that the central and compelling rights in a campaign donations and unrelenting lobbying democracy are human rights. They then activity. That’s how our government now compounded that egregious error by failing works. to follow a basic judicial principle: the need to Even before Citizens United, we could always weigh one right against another and predict with 90 percent accuracy who would strike a balance that’s in the best interests of win a major election simply by looking at who democracy. had the most money. Now the money A transnational corporation’s right to threatens to completely drown out the voice make a campaign donation is now seen as of the people. equivalent to my right to free speech. Really? Advocates of so-called free markets cannot In ruling the two are equivalent, the court in explain or justify the many perks effect subjugated my rights to the corporations are getting from their newfound corporation’s, given the great disparity power, such as unneeded subsidies and tax between individual vs. corporate wealth and loopholes. Aren’t BP and Exxon and GE the latter’s ability to dominate election making enough already? There’s no valid financing. reason why these breaks exist; they’re simply The dangerous and growing corporate power a result of industry’s ability to push through in politics is clearly not what the founders favor after favor. had in mind when they created this once Like many, I am increasingly discouraged great country. Thomas Jefferson once said with the present state of affairs. These that he hoped to “crush in its birth the feelings tend to feed voter apathy and aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, disengagement, which only reduces the which dare already to challenge our power we have to make a difference. But government to a trial of strength and bid people are starting to show an defiance to the laws of our country.” understandable outrage over the usurpation The money in politics has undermined our of our democracy, and this can be a democracy to the point where the average springboard to engagement. Tony Giordano is an adjunct college instructor and research consultant in social science who hails from Middletown.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 3, 2012 [NOT OTHERWISE TITLED] Three cheers to The Times-Dispatch for keeping climate change at the forefront. It's a scary topic, as Charles Battig shares in his letter, "Franken-energy can't survive on its own," likening clean energy to Frankenstein. However, he's got the scary parts mixed up. Catastrophic climate change puts terror in our hearts. Applying the solutions is the easy part â&#x20AC;&#x201D; just ask Texas. In the early 1990s, West Texas was one of the most financially depressed areas in the state. Small towns fell on hard times. Schools closed. People moved away. In 1999, wind power came to the rescue. In just over a decade, the installed capacity of wind turbines in Texas surpassed 10 gigawatts. If Texas were a country, it would rank sixth in the world in wind power capacity. What does this mean for citizens? Sweetwater Mayor Greg Wortham says folks

in his town talk about wind power being "green energy" because it pays cash. Wortham saw wind billows the town's tax base from $500 million to $2.5 billion. Schools reopened, full and funded. Ranchers and farmers call it "mailbox money." Each windmill generates between $5,000 and $15,000 per year. Ranches with an average of 10 to 20 turbines can provide financial stability for families who previously lived with uncertainty. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates wind could supply 20 percent of America's electricity by 2030. New offshore wind farms (including Virginia's Eastern Shore) would generate more than 43,000 new jobs. That translates into a $200 billion boost to the U.S. economy. Mindy Loiselle Richmond

TRENTON, NJ, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 2, 2012

Reverse climate crisis with carbon fee I was glad to see the letter “Act to save our climate from the ‘new normal’” (May 25), since many readers probably think there is nothing we can do to prevent climate change from irreparably harming our global environment. The proposed legislation referred to in that letter is designed to reduce the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which is coming from burning fossil fuels and disrupting the climate. H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, is a brilliant idea. It applies a fee to the carbon in fossil fuels as they enter the economy. The fossil fuel industry, not the taxpayer, pays this fee, which starts small and rises gradually year by year. Unlike tax money, the money from the fee does not go to support the

government — it goes directly into the pockets of American citizens. If the prices of fossil fuels rise, so do people’s incomes, so they needn’t suffer financially. The IRS distributes the money, so no huge, new bureaucracy is needed — and no regulation by the EPA. Best of all, the effect of this legislation is to make the prices of renewable energy and other alternative resources fall as the prices of fossil fuels rise. They call this a “market signal.” There’s no more effective way to shift consumer choices and investments into clean energy. We can actually fix the climate crisis. We need to pass this bill. Judith Kramer, Colts Neck

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/06/times_of_trenton_letters_to_th_360.html

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 2, 2012

Omnibus bill changes so much so quickly A dark-screen day for area websites; Groups to protest Conservatives’ budget bill (June 2) It’s good that Hamilton groups are fighting the Stephen Harper government’s omnibus bill that changes more than 70 laws in one swoop. Everyone should be worried when so much is changed so quickly with so little time for debate. On the declining democracy and quality of life front, the bill eliminates the National Council on Welfare, civilian oversight of the spy agency, some of the auditor general reports, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It shifts power to cabinet ministers from independent, arms-length agencies like the National Energy Board. It raises the pension age to 67 — taking at least $14,000 from those under 55 — and it squeezes the unemployed to abandon their training and experience and accept low-wage, unskilled jobs. The bill guts the Fisheries Act and federal environmental assessment. It lays off more than 14,000 people, including hundreds of

scientists responsible for environmental research, while continuing a $1.4 billion a year subsidy to the oil and gas industry. The Experimental Lakes Area, a renowned and globally unique facility for large-scale ecological studies that has highlighted a number of environmental concerns, will also be axed. Perhaps worst of all, it attacks charities with new restrictions and threats against any who speak out for the rights and needs of Canadians. All this and much more is jammed into a single bill, further shifting real power to the prime minister’s office from the elected MPs of all political parties. This bill has the people of Canada and the environment in its crosshairs while expanding Harper’s control and easing the way for big oil to continue destruction of the boreal forest and watershed. James S. Quinn Hamilton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JUNE 2, 2012

Wind energy bestows windfall on Texas town Three cheers to The Times-Dispatch for keeping climate change at the forefront. It's a scary topic, as Charles Battig shares in his letter, "Franken-energy can't survive on its own," likening clean energy to Frankenstein. However, he's got the scary parts mixed up. Catastrophic climate change puts terror in our hearts. Applying the solutions is the easy part â&#x20AC;&#x201D; just ask Texas. In the early 1990s, West Texas was one of the most financially depressed areas in the state. Small towns fell on hard times. Schools closed. People moved away. In 1999, wind power came to the rescue. In just over a decade, the installed capacity of wind turbines in Texas surpassed 10 gigawatts. If Texas were a country, it would rank sixth in the world in wind power capacity. What does this mean for citizens? Sweetwater Mayor Greg Wortham says folks

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2012

Act to save our climate from the ‘new normal’ “U.S. forecasters say heat will stay on this summer,” said The Times’ headline on May 18. It seems to imply that this forecast is for just a single summer, but it is not: It is part of a long-term trend. The planet’s temperature is going up — and up — and up. The article says this summer will be “warmer than normal.” Warmer than what normal? Author Bill McKibben, in his book “Eaarth,” points out that the conditions we once thought normal no longer exist on this planet. Today, we are living with a “new normal”— and each year, on average, is hotter than the year before. We must not let this happen. And we need not. We can slow, halt and reverse the globe’s rising temperature as soon as we choose to apply the available remedy. The antidote to

the warming trend is embodied in the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242, now awaiting action in the House of Representatives. The bill has 12 Democratic sponsors — no Republicans as yet, but word has it that several are considering backing it. If there were nothing we could do about this warming trend, people might simply become apathetic. And why not? They might as well eat, drink and try to forget the coming doom. But there is something we can do: We can pass this bill. Republicans, especially, need to persuade their legislators to get busy and make it happen. It’s time to turn this deadly climate trend around. Ellie Whitney East Windsor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 19, 2012

Climate and tar sands On May 5, the climate organization 350.org held a day of awareness during which thousands of people around the world took photographs to demonstrate the connection between extreme weather and human-made climate change. View a twominute video of these images at http://act.climatedots.org/signup/video. In a recent New York Times op-ed, "Game Over for the Climate," renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen described the costs of developing Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tar sands: "If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually

would reach levels higher than â&#x20AC;Ś 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher." As we rush to develop our own tar sands in eastern Utah, and contemplate exploiting its tar shale, Utah citizens have the opportunity to say No! to the reckless path we are on. By writing, calling and voting, we can let politicians know that in the conservative state of Utah, we care just as much about ending this threat to life and civilization as we know it as the many people around the world who voiced their concern in early May. Sam Schmidt Salt Lake City

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 18, 2012

Climate change is real Re: The Detroit News' May 16 article, "Study: Michigan saw increase in strong weather in last decade": Thank you for pointing out the impact that climate change is already having on Michigan. When Michigan has to import cherries from abroad because its own iconic crop was destroyed after a weirdly mild winter, when the village of Pellston breaks a previous March temperature record by a whopping 32 degrees, when the number of extreme storms in the state jumps 52 percent in 10 years, it's

time to take our collective heads out of the sand and realize that climate change is happening right here, right now. We face steadily increasing temperatures and more severe storms unless we change the course we're on as soon as possible. The solution is clear: we have to stop burning fossil fuels like coal and oil that are causing climate change. Erica Flock Washington, D.C.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 16, 2012

Today’s letters: Who’s to blame for global warming? Andrew Coyne’s salient article on climate change inaction is correct to point out what can only be described as negligence of the greatest order. With such an overwhelming majority of the climate scientists warning us of dire consequence, standard risk management dictates action. It’s time to put politics aside and put a price on carbon. We know how to get back on track. Where is the leader to take us there? Ian Edwards Toronto

What Canada needs, as Andrew Coyne suggests, is not a new layer of designed-to-fail regulations (the Harper plan) but a simple price on carbon that allows the market to work its own regulatory magic. Doing this would be very easy. Just impose a tax on fossil fuels at the wellhead or wherever they enter the country and distribute the resulting income among all Canadian adults. Start at a modest level, but build in a predictable increase and stick to it. Then watch as our pocketbooks and conscience join forces to take us down the smartest path to low-carbon prosperity. Paul Antze Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 9, 2012

Time for a corrective tax on carbon In his letter, “Give the free market a chance,” Robert Harris complains about subsidies for clean energy. I agree. Subsidies for energy production, research and exploration are taxpayer money down the drain. Let’s get Congress out of the betting game. Eliminate subsidies for oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar and nuclear— all of them. Instead, listen to the majority of economists: Place a corrective tax on carbon pollution. Bush and Romney economic adviser Greg Mankiw adores the idea of a corrective tax. “Internalize the externalities,” he says. Mankiw is not alone. An elite group of economists and pundits have the good sense to publicly advocate higher Pigouvian taxes— taxes levied on companies or products that pollute the environment or create excess social costs— such as gasoline taxes or carbon taxes. The Pigou Club wants market integrity. Use a corrective tax, they say.

Incorporate into the price of an item its actual costs to society. With coal, oil and natural gas these costs include harm to the environment, catastrophic damage to our climate, road congestion and national security. A carbon tax would let consumers and investors consider these very real threats to our way of life each time we pump gas, cool homes or power our factories. Congressman Pete Stark proposed the Save Our Climate Act outlining a corrective tax on carbon pollution. Virginia’s congressmen could co-sponsor that bill, now in the Ways and Means committee. Supporting the Save Our Climate Act would move us one step closer to an economy respectful of the fact that its very existence is dependent upon the stability of our climate and the health of its consumers. JOHN WHITWORTH RICHMOND

Times of Trenton guest opinion column, May 6, 2012

Opinion: World's faith groups agree that climate change is a growing concern By Lynn Whitney

AP Photo/John McConnicoAn iceberg is seen in Disko Bay, Greenland above the arctic circle in this 2005 file photo.

Late last year, my mother asked me to make a collection of statements by various faith groups on the subject of climate change. She volunteers for the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL), an international, nonpartisan, nonprofit group that is urging Congress to pass legislation to curb U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. CCL foresaw that the world’s religious communities might be a valuable ally. I agreed to take on this task and began by looking up a number of Christian and Jewish groups on the internet. I was surprised to find almost complete agreement among them. All are concerned about the advancing damage that climate change is inflicting on the Earth and its peoples, all acknowledge that human

activities are the major cause of this trend and all believe we should take responsibility for reversing it. Similar themes pervade all of their writings: concern for the poor, the vulnerable and future generations. Fascinated, I went on to look up documents on the climate by Eastern and other religious groups and by indigenous peoples. Again, I found almost 100-percent agreement among them on the reality and causes of climate change. Following are a few excerpts from the statements I found. A Southern Baptist statement reads, “It is prudent to address global climate change. ... Christian moral convictions and our Southern Baptist doctrines demand our environmental stewardship.”

An Evangelical statement reads, “Humaninduced climate change is real. ... The consequences .. will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest. ... Christian moral convictions demand our response.” The Central Conference of American Rabbis drafted a statement based upon these principles: “Responsibilities to future generations ... integrity of creation ... equitable distribution of responsibility ... protection of the vulnerable . ...” The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Scientists, together with noted climatologists and glacier scientists of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, produced a dramatic and powerful statement for the pope. The report begins: “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 . ...” The Vatican report asserts that three measures must be taken immediately, the foremost of which is to “reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible.” It ends with the warning: “The cost of the three recommended measures pales in comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.” In their declaration on climate change, the Buddhists say, “We have a brief window of opportunity to preserve humanity from imminent disaster and to assist the survival of the many diverse and beautiful forms of life on Earth. ... Future generations ... have no voice to ask for our compassion.” The Dalai Lama, the leader of the Tibetan Buddhists, was the first to sign the Buddhist declaration. He said the environmental problems faced on the Tibetan plateau were of even greater urgency than Tibet’s political problems: “The political agenda should be sidelined

for five to 10 years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change.” Many of the world’s indigenous people together created a declaration that says, in part, “Mother Earth is no longer in a period of climate change, but in climate crisis. We therefore insist on an immediate end to the destruction and desecration of the elements of life. Through our knowledge, spirituality, sciences, practices, experiences and relationships with our traditional lands, territories, waters, air, forests, oceans, sea ice ... and all life, indigenous peoples have a vital role to play in defending and healing Mother Earth.” With only one exception, the Mormon Church, every religious group I looked up has made a similar statement. These are easy to find by searching the web for phrases such as “Hindus and climate,” “Quakers and climate,” and the like. Some statements, such as the following by the United Church of Canada, imply blame: “Climate change is being caused largely by the polluting emissions from richer, overdeveloped nations.” I think, however, that blame is not useful. I prefer to think in terms of responsibility. But whatever the attitude, there is overwhelming agreement that we humans are in terrible, self-caused trouble due to our overuse of fossil fuels. There is a way forward. If the U.S. Congress passes legislation placing a fee on carbon content of fuels, and if this fee is introduced gradually and the proceeds are returned to American households, then our citizens can prosper economically while shifting to a clean-energy economy. Other countries are likely to follow, and we can begin to heal the planet. I hope we will go this way. Lynn Whitney is a certified nurse-midwife and a stay-at-home mom.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 6, 2012

'Nerd' is not the word for voters Concerning Kathleen Parker's Sunday Sun article on President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, I was struck by her analysis of the two, and troubled by her conclusion. The nerd only wins over the cool kid in movies. Former Vice President Al Gore, the nerd's nerd, lost to Bush, who was a cool baseball team owner. Moreover, President Obama is one nerdy constitutional law professor who actively works to tone down his nerdiness because nerds often have a hard time communicating. Romney is not a nerd because he has no expertise in anything, no inclination to study, no true nerdishly obsessive qualities. I suspect he is basically an

uptight guy who is being asked to talk to people and he has trouble relaxing and talking because he has so many minefields to avoid. Finally, this type of analysis does not really help the voter decide how to vote in November. It would be much more helpful if you asked reporters to research and write about both men's plans regarding climate change. Climate change, a nerdy topic, is the most weighty challenge we face right now and no one should be elected to office in Washington in November unless he/she can speak clearly about the subject and has a serious plan of action. JUDY WEISS Brookline

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 3, 2012

Gingrich's finger needed biting A recent editorial cartoon by Steve Kelly showed Newt Gingrich looking at his throbbing finger, bitten by a penguin at the zoo. Of course the penguin is offended. In 2008, Gingrich made a call to action on climate change. He backtracked on his promise to work across party lines on the most pressing issue of our day. As a result, the penguin's world is changing. Polar ice is shrinking. Nesting zones are shifting. Gingrich could get back on the penguin's good side by encouraging Congress to pass the Save Our Climate Act. This act, currently in the House Ways and Means Committee, puts a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels. Most of the revenue from this fee gets returned to American households to cushion rising energy costs. A portion goes to pay

down the national debt. A broader adjustment encourages other countries to transition quickly to renewable energy or pay us for not doing so. This corrective tax returns integrity to the free market, bringing into account the external costs of fossil fuels: pollution, global warming, road congestion, national security, and regulations. Your Earth Day article called for a reduction in "negative externalities." Bravo! We've got a limited window, five to 10 years in which to point our economy decisively in the renewable energy direction before we face what the penguin and polar bear confront today.

Suzanne Hallberg Richmond

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 2, 2012

Be aware of environmental issues As the elections approach, it is important for all voters to be aware of where candidates stand on environmental issues and who supports greedy lobbies and corporate elites. The following facts are provided by the Environmental Defense Action Fund and they are frightening. Over $40 million has been spent on lobbying by the power industry in one year to support their efforts to gut enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The industry has opposed a new boiler rule that can prevent 33,000 aggravated asthma cases each year. The possible effects of this opposition can hit home right here, not just in some other part of the country.

When I was the school nurse for Alexandria, the most common ailment in the school population was asthma. Seventy two percent of total toxic air mercury pollution comes from Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s coal-fired power plants. One hundred twenty five antienvironmental bills passed the House of Representatives last year, while no comprehensive climate change bills passed Congress. There are other frightening percentages and numbers that could be added to this list but, please, everyone, be aware of what is happening and make your opinions and power felt in the voting booth. Judith Peterson Alexandria, MN

OPED, APRIL 25, 2012

Commentary - Earth in the balance: What will you do? You’ve heard it all before. The last 10 years the hottest since mankind started keeping records – about the time the Industrial Revolution gathered speed. Record floods displacing millions, droughts with thousands of cattle dead, fires destroying millions of acres of valuable forest and farmlands. The Amazon rainforest burned off by cattle ranchers responding to record beef prices. By Jeanne Johnson, 7th Congressional District Citizens Climate Lobby, Alexandria, MN You’ve heard it all before. The last 10 years the hottest since mankind started keeping records – about the time the Industrial Revolution gathered speed. Record floods displacing millions, droughts with thousands of cattle dead, fires destroying millions of acres of valuable forest and farmlands. The Amazon rainforest burned off by cattle ranchers responding to record beef prices. More than 17,000 temperature records broken in March alone. The insurance companies raising premiums because of losing billions in weather-related losses. Americans are starting to feel the early warning system of an Earth out of balance. My own understanding of Earth in the balance grew out of an early appreciation for the wonder of nature. As a child I wandered my Iowa farm, learned the language of pasture and field, grew to know the scent of the walnut trees perfuming the summer air, gloried in fields bright with butterflies. I breathed it in. And the weather. It was always on the mind of a farmer. It brought joy or

despair. But even the disappointments had a certain regularity. A balance. Now we have lost that balance. In the era of human-caused climate change, I have come to realize that when we interfere with the balance of nature, all of us will suffer. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We live here. There’s nowhere else to go. A Depression child, I watched as others suffered the inevitable pain that life can bring. But this change in the weather is not the preordained working of nature. We did this, are doing it every day. We can’t help it. Our economy runs on oil and coal and to a lesser extent, natural gas. We have benefitted greatly from this free energy, built the most powerful nation in history. Take away these fossil fuels, created out of ancient bacteria millions of years ago, and we would suffer total economic collapse. Yet these resources are limited. What do we do when they run out? A tax on oil, coal and natural gas looks like the best approach. Small increases in the price of the dirty fuels would create an investment boom in clean energy – wind, solar, biomass – creating millions more jobs. Consumers would buy fuel-efficient cars and retro-fit their houses. Industry would seek ways to reduce energy use. Ask 3M and Dow about the billions saved in smart factories. And, yes, coal-fired utilities would have to either find ways to clean up coal or switch to natural gas. Contrary to popular wisdom, Americans do care deeply about the Earth and its people. Witness the recent attendance at the Alexandria Eco Fair, the number listening to Don Shelby’s nature talk, the urgent questions at Senior College following Dr. John

Abraham’s lecture on climate change. National surveys show that Americans care, wish to reduce our use of fossil fuels, and would support a tax on them even if it meant higher utility bills. Yet few of our leaders dare take a stand. They cower in their offices warmed by fossil fuel campaign donations, terrified of fuel industry retaliation in the next election, and lip syncing industry talking points. A daring legislator has introduced a bill (HR3242 – Save Our Climate Act) that would enact a tax on oil, coal and natural gas. The bill returns the tax revenue to the American

people with an annual check. Just like they do in other countries. Citizens Climate Lobby analysis indicates that almost 70 percent of Americans would be made whole by the rebate. Many low users would get back more than any increase in prices. Only the individual action of committed citizens can overcome the hundreds of Big Oil lobbyists. In this, the Week of the Earth, are you one of those who will take this small step, a brief moment of your time to witness your commitment? Time is running out. Lester Brown has warned, “Nature is the timekeeper, but we cannot see the clock.”

OPED, April 22, 2012

Opinion: It's hard to celebrate Earth Day while facing crisis of climate change By Tony Giordano

Michael Mancuso View looking north of evening rush-hour traffic on I-295 with PSEG's coal-burning Mercer Generating Station in background at left.

By Tony Giordano

More and more people are taking the opportunity on Earth Day to recognize and celebrate the countless life-giving wonders of our precious home planet, the only place in the universe known to support life. But, for some of us, the celebration is dampened by the realization that we’re abusing and mistreating our home, most notably by poisoning the air daily with tons of greenhouse gases that alter the climate. Much of the public, burdened by climatechange denier propaganda, is unable to accept the unpleasant reality of climate change and seek solutions. Fortunately, when people learn the facts, they can understand man’s role in the problem. Climate change is real, it’s caused primarily by man’s activities, and we need to act now to reduce destructive fossil fuel use and develop clean energy. While climate change is a technical, complex subject, it’s nevertheless surprising that stubborn denial and widespread confusion remain about what accounts for it.

The scientific community is convinced, based on overwhelming evidence, that recent climate change is due to human activity. The few vocal “deniers” of the science are generally not climate scientists, or they have financial conflicts of interest. For the true science on climate change, we can refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or leading climatologist James Hansen. From these reliable sources, we can learn about the accelerating, large-scale melting of glaciers and ice caps around the world, which are producing sea-level rise that will increasingly inundate coastal settlements of hundreds of millions of people around the world and lead to mass migrations. We can read about other dire consequences of continued CO2 increase, including the rapid and dangerous acidification of the oceans, the drastic increase in severe or catastrophic weather events, the loss of habitat or the extinction of

yet another species, which, like us, depends on an intricately balanced ecosystem. Despite all this, some remain unconvinced that man’s activities are the cause. They point to apparent but irrelevant discrepancies, such as the times in Earth’s distant past when the temperature, the level of CO2 and the overall climate were much different. However, scientists are able to determine the source of C02 by its particular signature of carbon isotopes. Proof that the recent dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human activity lies in the unique signature of isotopes associated with CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The growing concentrations of corporate wealth and power of late have unduly influenced government policy and undermined our democracy and our ability to tackle urgent problems such as climate change. Examples abound, such as Big Oil’s effect on the congressional Keystone Pipeline votes, where we saw that Congress members who received the most contributions from fossil fuel companies were the ones pushing for fast approval of the pipeline. And fossil fuel companies have used the profits from our energy purchases to fund an orchestrated media campaign denying climate change, simply because it’s in their business interest. This propaganda is what’s producing much of the confusion, even among segments of government, and this has forestalled actions to reduce fossil fuel use. The issue has become so politicized that many conservatives refuse to act. It’s frustrating and ironic because, as we waste precious time with this prolonged partisan “debate,” governments everywhere are preparing for the effects of climate change. Our own Defense Department views climate change as a major threat to stability and peace and is preparing steps to deal with it. The Saudi minister of energy has come out

with a statement recognizing climate change and the need for everyone, including oil-rich nations, to act. Major world religions have issued statements describing man-made climate change as a moral and ethical issue with potentially catastrophic effects on future generations. The consequences of global warming and other aspects of climate change represent possibly the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. But there’s still time to act. The actions individuals can take include using renewable energy, reducing their energy use and recycling. This is helping, but efforts must also be taken by government and business. Government action is needed to stop encouraging fossil fuel use through oil subsidies and through failing to build the true costs into the pricing and use of carbon-based energy. With every gallon of gas we burn, we put numerous toxins, including excess CO2, into the air, causing pollution, health problems and ultimately, large-scale climate changes. But energy producers do not pay for these things — the costs are “socialized’ while business profits are privatized. To reduce use of fossil fuels and spur movement toward clean, alternative energy, we need to implement a long-overdue carbon fee, phased in over several years to allow people to adjust to it. Since recession-weary consumers don’t want to pay more for energy, H.R. 3242, which would impose a carbon fee at the point of production or first point of sale, proposes that 80 percent of the money go back to consumers via dividends. I urge everyone to ask their representatives to support this Save Our Climate Act. Tony Giordano, adjunct college instructor and research consultant in social science, is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby, Sierra Club and the Monmouth County Cool Cities Partnership.

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Christopher Byrd: We must address climate change now By Christopher Byrd It's Earth Day in Tallahassee, and the planet sends a message: Stop burning things that make us hotter! Earlier this month, while watching the Masters golf tournament, I had the sense that something was missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National. The azaleas, normally in full bloom during the first major tournament of the year, had peaked several weeks before, just as they had here in Tallahassee — thanks to the unusually warm March weather that saw 15,000 temperature records broken in the United States. Our azaleas are but one of the many canaries in the coal mine signaling that something is terribly amiss with the world's climate. As Earth Day 2012 arrives, our planet is trying desperately to sound the warning: If we don't curtail our burning of fossil fuels, the world that we have known and come to rely on will cease to exist. But will the public and our elected officials heed this warning in time to avert the catastrophes that await us on our current trajectory? Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to change course before we lock in the inefficient, carbon-based infrastructure that will cause greenhouse gases to rise beyond sustainable levels. "The door is closing," said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA. "I am very worried — if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what

scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed forever." At a climate change conference in London in late March, scientists warned of the tipping point that may be reached within this decade — a tipping point that would make the warming process irreversible. Of great concern are: • Thawing of Siberia's permafrost, which contains about 1,600 billion tons of CO2, more than twice the amount in the atmosphere. • Droughts in Brazil, which are transforming the Amazon rainforest from a carbon sink into a carbon emitter. • Ice sheets that are shrinking, with the Greenland ice sheet losing about 48 cubic miles each year since the 1990s. • Losses of sea ice in the Arctic, which once reflected the sun's light and now are leaving dark, open water that absorbs sunlight and heat. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. Oxfam reports that climate change is a factor in the floods and droughts that are devastating crops and sending food prices skyrocketing. Last July in Ethiopia,

maize prices were 191 percent higher than the previous five-year average; in Kenya, maize prices were 161 percent higher. Despite dire warnings that our current decade is a do-or-die time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the most recent international conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, produced an agreement to start taking action several years down the road, and the emissions would not begin to be cut until 2020. The global community is playing Russian roulette with a fully-loaded revolver. If there is any sign of hope, it comes from the surging development of clean energy — wind and solar in particular — in industrialized nations. That hope, however, is being dashed as governments reduce their support for renewables. A recent report shows that global investments in clean energy have plunged to a threeyear low. How can we reverse this perilous course? We need a national policy that will quickly and efficiently wean the United States and other nations off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. We need to stop burning things that make the world hotter. Such a policy must also protect our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. We need a solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force. It must be simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. It must protect U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. It must motivate other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. What national policy could possibly meet all these criteria? Legislation to do all of these things already awaits consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in October, the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242) would tax the amount

of CO2 a fossil fuel emits when burned, starting at $10 a ton. The tax increases by $10 a ton each year, eventually making clean energy sources such as wind and solar more profitable than coal and oil. But wouldn't this new tax increase the cost of energy? How could the public be persuaded to accept such a thing? The answer is simple: Give the revenue from the carbon tax back to consumers. Stark's legislation would take most of the money — a small portion goes to deficit reduction — and return it to the public as equal, per-capita annual payments, thus protecting households from rising fuel and energy costs. To protect American businesses from unfair foreign competition, HR 3242 would impose border adjustments on goods from nations that don't have an equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. Rather than pay the U.S. Treasury, nations would be motivated to impose a similar tax and keep the proceeds within their own borders. Worried about China? They'd either play or pay. Because it is a revenue-neutral approach that doesn't increase the size of government, the carbon fee and dividend, as it is called, can be supported by Republicans who seek a solution on climate change but are averse to more subsidies and regulations. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, our leaders must begin to discuss in earnest legislation to address climate change. Let's hope that by Earth Day 2013 our elected officials will have heeded our planet's dramatic warnings and put in place a policy that steers us toward recovery. If our elected leaders haven't taken action by then, early azaleas will be the least of our concerns. Christopher Byrd is Tallahassee group leader of the Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org ). Contact him at christophertbyrd@gmail.com .

OPED, April 22, 2012

Earth Day: Our precious and rare Mother Earth

MARK DYE/FOR THE STAR LEDGER

Laura Grabowski and her brother Christopher, bag trash on the Raritan River as part of the The Raritan River Earth Day Coalition's activities in New Brunswick in 2009.

By Tony Giordano One night not long ago I was watching a science documentary on television when I heard something striking. Able to quickly understand the message, I wasn’t totally shocked, merely surprised that I had never before heard this simple yet profound truth: by far the most amazing thing in the universe known to science is the planet Earth. The countless, precise conditions required to support intelligent life are so rare and yet our home planet alone has all these necessary conditions. Yes, perhaps we’ll soon discover life on other heavenly bodies, but increasing numbers of scientists believe that intelligent

life will prove to be extremely rare because that exact set of requisite conditions must exist for hundreds of millions of years in order for intelligence to have a chance to evolve. These conditions range from climate to physical elements to plate tectonics to location in the solar system and galaxy. The uniqueness of this rich, blessed planet is yet another reason for us to appreciate our Mother Earth. My thesis is this: our wondrous, unique, life-giving planet Earth is terribly unappreciated. It’s not at all clear why that is, but maybe it’s time to change our thinking and recognize how we depend totally on the

many life-giving properties the Earth provides. Stop and think a moment about common expressions such as, “one of God’s creatures,” or “God gave us life.” Is it not really the Earth that accounts for these blessings, at least in part? Shouldn’t some of the credit given to ‘God’ go to the Earth for giving birth to life and sustaining it? Whether or not you believe in a God you can recognize the vital and indispensable things the Earth gives. Many years ago a Native American wise man offered these observations that seem eerily prophetic today: “The white man treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only desert… This earth is precious to Him, the God of man, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator.” -- Chief Seattle (c. 1786-1866) Is there not a deeply spiritual quality in the wonders of our Mother Earth? Can we not see there the qualities we attribute to a Creator? And are we not offensive and contemptuous of this God with our careless, destructive treatment of the Creation? It’s ironic that we thank and worship deities based strictly on faith in words written some 2,000 years ago, but have difficulty recognizing the endless manifestations of life’s source right in front of us daily—the wonders of the only planet in the universe known to support life. Is this simply a case of ‘familiarity breeds contempt,’ causing a grand transference of our love from this deserving planet to a highly embellished and rationalized conception of a deity? What more can we ask of a God than what the Earth has given us? Terms intended to denigrate and trivialize environmentalists such as “tree hugger” have always mystified me—why shouldn’t we love trees? They’re truly spectacular, the crowning achievement of the plant kingdom. And they provide such vital things as much of the oxygen we breathe. We need trees, and more of them. But they’ve somehow become the

target of ridicule from people denying climate change and the need to protect the natural environment. Well, let me just say proudly, I absolutely love trees. And for that matter, I love the many diverse creatures who share this planet with us. When I see a squirrel or bird or ant I feel an innate connection, a bond in our common ancestry and shared DNA, and an interdependent fate. We will live and die with these creatures. But perhaps because people now spend so much of their time indoors on computers or in front of TV sets in artificially heated or cooled environments amidst countless luxuries, they tend to forget that we like all creatures are part of nature and depend on its delicate balance for our very survival. We are losing our connection with nature and our reverence for it. Sadly, if Chief Seattle were alive today he’d no doubt feel that we Americans are among the most contemptuous inhabitants of this precious creation. We are destroying this Earth in so many ways, climate change being simply one dire aspect of the problem. Can we be wise and caring and humble enough to change our thinking and our ways? What will our descendants who inherit this planet think about how we’re treating it? The good news is that hopeful signs are emerging that people and governments and institutions are finally starting to see the light and take action. The growing GreenFaith religious coalition to protect the environment is one promising example. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences statement on the urgent need for action on climate change is another. It’s not just science telling us to act. While a host of conglomerates led by the notorious Koch Industries continue to fund propaganda denying climate change, they quietly prepare for a world of rising seas and weather extremes and energy shortages. They know what’s happening-- how long can they play it both ways? Can these powerful corporations lead us to solutions rather than continue to exacerbate the problems? Maybe they’re waiting for direction from us— the voters, taxpayers, consumers-- who make

their existence and their fortunes possible. How would you have them treat this precious planet of ours on this Earth Day and beyond?

Tony Giordano, adjunct college instructor and researcher in social science, is a volunteer with the Citizens Climate Lobby, Sierra Club and Monmouth County Cool Cities Partnership

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Marshall Saunders: Earth to mankind By Marshall Saunders Special to The Sun As I watched the Masters tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National — the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March — 15,000 temperature records were set — and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA's first major or the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn't matter, but they're just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth's climate. On Earth Day, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or the world human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. “The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, said. “If we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed forever.”

At a climate change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed are the feedback loops being reached — thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much CO2 as what's currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rainforests from carbon sinks to carbon emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. It's a world where, at mid-century, 9 billion people will be clamoring for everdwindling food and water, producing instability and turmoil on a scale we've never seen. There is another equally important tipping point, which is the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have, essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political will

tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes all of the following: ■ Quickly weans the United States and other nations off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. ■ Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. ■ Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. ■ Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. ■ Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. ■ Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. Amazingly, a bill that meets all these

criteria has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242). It places a gradually-increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like HR 3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie “Apollo 13,” failure is not an option here. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Marshall Saunders is founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat By Marshall Saunders

In this March 4, 2003 file photo, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference in Washington. (Associated Press)

As I watched the Masters tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National — the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March — 15,000 temperature records were set — and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA's first major of the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn't matter, but they're just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth's climate. As Earth Day arrives, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or

the world that human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. At a climate change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed is the feedback loops being reached — thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much CO2 as what's currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rainforests from carbon sinks to carbon

emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. There is another equally important tipping point: the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have, essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political-will tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes all of the following: Quickly weans the United States off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the

government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. A bill that meets these criteria has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the Save Our Climate Act (HR3242). It places a gradually-increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like HR3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie "Apollo 13," failure is not an option hear. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Marshall Saunders is the founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, APRIL 21, 2O12

Earth Day: Humans must stop burning things that make the world hotter By Marshall Saunders Editor's note: April 22 is the 42nd anniversary of what is often called the birth of the modern environmental movement. This is one of four essays in which San Diegans discuss the need for vigilance in environmental law enforcement, science, education and legislative action. As I watched the Masters golf tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National – the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March – 15,000 temperature records were set – and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA’s first major or the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn’t matter. But they’re just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth’s climate. On Earth Day, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or the world human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. “The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, said. “If we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the

minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.” At a climate-change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed are the feedback loops being reached – thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much carbon dioxide as what’s currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rain forests from carbon sinks to carbon emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. It’s a world where, at midcentury, 9 billion people will be clamoring for ever-dwindling food and water, producing instability and turmoil on a scale we’ve never seen. There is another equally important tipping point, which is the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have,

essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political will tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes the following: •Quickly weans the United States and other nations off our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. •Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. •Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. •Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. •Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. •Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies.

Amazingly, a bill that meets all these criteria has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). It places a gradually increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark’s bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like H.R. 3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie “Apollo 13,” failure is not an option. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Saunders is founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby, a Coronado-based organization that seeks solutions to global warming.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 18, 2012

Carbon fee An April 13 Journal-World article gave us great news: Kansas is leading the nation in current wind energy production! But along with the good news came a warning: Unless Congress extends the wind energy production tax credit, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s likely the wind will soon be knocked right out of our sails. Hopefully our Members of Congress will vote to extend this tax credit. Even better if our political leaders would vote for carbon fee and dividend legislation. By placing a tax on carbon at its source (well, mine, port of entry) and then steadily increasing this fee each year, renewable energy would receive a clear, consistent market signal. This would encourage entrepreneurs and investors to invest fully into the green energy economy, with an estimated 4.5 million new jobs as another attractive dividend!

Carbon fee and dividend also shields the poor and middle class from undue economic hardship by returning all the tax collected to American households on an equitable basis. With this legislation, 70 percent of households would actually receive more than they would pay for the increased cost of clean energy. Sen. Roberts, Sen. Moran, Rep. Yoder and Rep. Jenkins, I sincerely hope you will extend the wind energy production tax AND also vote for carbon fee and dividend legislation. This is your chance to ensure Kansas continues to lead the way in wind production, and also leads the way in downright clever thinking. Lynate Pettengill Lawrence

OPED, APRIL 14, 2012

There’s much to discuss Last Saturday’s Views page contained five articles presenting various viewpoints on the Marcellus Shale as a run-up to today’s Public Issues Forum “Marcellus Shale: What Does it Mean for Us?” Interesting points were raised but, unfortunately, there was no mention of the real issue with using the natural gas buried in the Marcellus Shale: it is simply another carbon-based fossil fuel. When burned, natural gas, like coal and oil, releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The result, as has been scientifically understood and accepted for more than 100 years, is climate change and global warming. We are already seeing the harmful effects of our fossil-fuel-based economy with new and stronger evidence every day. All predictions are that climate change will get progressively worse if we continue to burn all the coal, oil

and gas we can produce while using the atmosphere as an open sewer to receive the carbon waste. The only way to forestall the dire predictions from coming true is to use less carbon fuel. The natural gas in the shale is not a “bridge fuel” and is only marginally cleaner than coal and oil. It is another form of carbon fuel that could seriously affect life on Earth. We must use less of it in all forms. We should invest in creating the clean and renewable energy sources of the future; not in the harmful fuels of the past. In the process, we will create jobs, build a sustainable economy for the future and leave a livable planet for the generations that follow. Accomplishing this is the discussion we should be having. Bob Potter Boalsburg

LTE, APRIL 13, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 12, 2012

A hot wake-up call Regarding “It’s already been a very recordbreaking hot year,” (utsandiego.com, April 9): It took Australians a rash of bush fires to convince them that climate change was something they had to act on. They passed a carbon tax, a policy that economists widely agree is the simplest, cheapest, most effective way to deal with the problem.

Hopefully, this record-breaking winter will be our wake-up call. Perhaps, like Australians, we as a people will finally come to terms with our role in humanity’s dangerous experiment with the atmosphere. And hopefully, like the Australians, we will adopt an efficient and logical policy to make fossil carbon reflect its true cost. Daniel Richter La Jolla

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 12, 2012

Re: Titanic's sinking pervades our culture, Editorial, April 10 Are we living on the planet Titanic? That is the question we should be asking ourselves this week. Thanks to the Star editors for pointing out just how foolish it is to take nature — and our atmosphere — for granted. Just as those on the Titanic couldn’t believe it would sink, and so many drowned because the builders didn’t provide enough lifeboats, that’s happening today, too. Scientists are telling us we must reduce carbon emissions — drastically and quickly. Yet politicians are not listening and instead our emissions keep going up. A fee on carbon use would help us get the ship turned around before we hit the point of irreversible climate change. We like the ease with which we live in a fossil fuelled economy — but it can’t last. The sooner we steer the ship away from disaster, the better. Politicians will only take action when they hear it from the people. So tell your MP and MPP now to put a price on carbon. Our future and our children’s future depend on it. Lyn Adamson, Toronto You link hubris to our ineptitude to act on climate change. I agree but I still have to ask: is hubris strong enough? The makers of the Titanic were ill-informed. Contrast that to the current climate debacle with the vast majority of climate scientists (97 per cent at last count) screaming “beware the icebergs!” We are not. I think “stupid” is more apt. Ian Edwards, Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 9, 2012

Titanic truths This month's 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic contains a warning for us all. In 1912, some of the world's wealthiest people were enjoying the maiden voyage of a ship described as unsinkable. Steaming at full speed into an area known to contain icebergs, her captain was more interested in a fast sailing time than safety. When disaster struck, there were not enough lifeboats, and the chances of survival depended on whether you were travelling first class or third. In 2012, the world is sailing full steam

ahead, with our captains assuring us that our way of life is unsinkable. Wealthy nations continue to enjoy their luxuries, unable to imagine why they should consume less. Yet, Mother Nature has given us warning signals in the form of rising global temperatures and extreme weather events, all of which we choose to ignore. And we still pay insufficient regard to Steamship Earth's poorest passengers. So, should we reduce speed and change course, or just carry on? Dave Carson Dundas, Ontario

OPED, APRIL 9, 2012

More drilling won't lower the rising price of gasoline By Rob Brinkman Special to The Sun High gasoline prices getting you down? Many politicians profess — and much of the public assumes — that we can reduce the pain at the pump by drilling for more domestic oil. But that's simply not true. A recent exhaustive analysis by The Associated Press shows there is no statistical correlation between the price of oil and domestic production levels over the last 36 years. Despite political rhetoric, we cannot drill our way to lower prices. Domestic oil production has risen to levels not seen in the last 16 years, yet prices remain high. Imported oil, accounting for 60 percent of our supply in 2005, now only accounts for 45 percent of our consumption. All of that oil — both domestic and foreign — is sold on a global market to the highest bidder. Exxon-Mobil is not giving the U.S. a discount for oil it pumped out of the Gulf of Mexico. We consume 20 percent of the world's oil and control 2 percent of the reserves. Do the math. High energy prices not only drain our wallets, they threaten prospects for economic recovery. The supply of fossil fuels is finite, and with the economies of China and India growing by leaps and bounds, the price of oil will be driven ever higher. Clearly, past policies have not worked. The only way to stabilize energy costs is to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. We must transition to a renewable energy-based economy. Market forces

provide the most efficient way to provide the incentives for investment in renewable energy technologies. Rather than subsidizing fossil fuels, as we currently do, a fee should be levied at the mine, well head or port of entry, based on the carbon emitted when that fuel is burned. By pricing carbon-based fuels, renewable fuels will compete better in the marketplace. A fee of $10 to $15 per ton of carbon dioxide, increasing by $10 each year, would drive investments in efficiency and renewables. Every $10 per ton would increase the price of gasoline about ten cents per gallon. Where would all the money collected by this carbon fee go? In order to ease the burden on consumers and provide a financial incentive to reduce energy consumption, it should be returned to consumers in monthly dividend payments directly from the IRS. At full implementation, this would amount to about $1,500 a year. Most consumers would receive more in dividend payments than they would be paying in increased cost from the carbon fee. This approach is called carbon fee and dividend, and is incorporated in the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242) introduced by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). Besides giving everyone a strong financial incentive to save energy, it would provide certainty to investors in clean energy while also reducing all forms of

pollution and helping to reduce greenhouse energy industries could create many clean gas emissions. energy jobs in these communities and So would a fee and dividend on carbon improve the economic outlook for local dioxide actually stimulate economic growth residents. In fact, the renewable energy and create jobs? A report from Citizens industry creates two to three times more jobs Climate Lobby, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Building the Green per million dollars of output than do fossil Economy,â&#x20AC;? notes that in 2008 the Canadian fuels industries. province of British Columbia was the first Clearly, we can end our addiction to oil North American jurisdiction to implement a and other fossil fuels, build a clean fee on carbon dioxide emissions. By 2009, the prosperous economy, and stabilizing our first full year of implementation, economic energy costs with a price on carbon. And by growth in BC exceeded the Canadian national lowering our greenhouse gas emissions, we rate. The unemployment rate was also the can save future generations from a climate lowest in Canada that year. catastrophe. Many communities that are highly More drilling won't reduce our pain at the dependent on fossil fuel extraction, such as pump, but ending our addiction to fossil fuels the coal fields of Appalachia, are among the will reduce our pain in the future. most impoverished in the nation. Renewable Brinkman is the co-coordinator of the Gainesville chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 8, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Put a price on carbon emissions Our emission of greenhouse gases is changing the climate at an extreme rapid rate. We are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide at two parts per million per year. The last time the concentration of carbon dioxide increased this much, it took 10,000 years. As your article of April 9 points out, this results in some rather strange (and worrisome) weather. The good news about climate change is that it is caused by humans. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re in charge and we know how to be in charge. We just need the right policy to ensure a stable climate for our children. We should start by removing the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. We also

need a price on carbon emissions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; starting at $15 per ton the first year and increasing $10 per ton each successive year. Finally, to protect American industry from foreign competition we need border adjustments. Together, these measures will restore price integrity to the markets. They will increase private investment in low-carbon technologies, incentivize efficiency, and begin the desperately needed reduction of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. It will put us on a path to a more livable planet. Ross Astoria Kenosha

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

We're paying the price for fossil fuels dependence Regarding Robert Samuelson’s column of April 2, “Energy vs. environment: Can we strike a balance?” I would heartily agree that we need to strike a balance between energy needs and the environment. The problem that Samuelson overlooks is that this country has been tipping the balance in favor of energy for decades, and we’re now paying the price for that lack of foresight and discipline. What price? For one, rapidly rising energy prices because we’ve been dependent far too long on increasingly scarce and toxic fossil fuels while delaying aggressive movement to renewable energy. Example: We continue to provide outdated and senseless subsidies to fossil fuel companies, making it harder for renewables to be cost competitive. Last week’s attempt to end these subsidies failed as energy companies continue their corrupting and

unacceptable hold on Congress. The other price we pay with our stubborn dependence on dirty fossil fuels for most of our energy needs is the significant and widespread destruction of the natural environment, which we and all creatures rely on for life-giving sustenance. Global warming/climate change is merely one aspect of that destruction. Fortunately, as urgent as the situation is, there’s still time to take effective action. Develop clean renewable sources; conserve energy; end fossil fuel subsidies; stop building oil pipelines, and tax carbon use to recoup the social costs. These actions would strike a better, more sustainable balance for the long term, so that our children and grandchildren will not suffer for our greed and shortsightedness. Tony Giordano Middletown

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 5, 2012

Federal budget ignores the environment The Conservatives want to save the taxpayers money and move towards a more limited government, yet they did not cut fossil fuel subsidies of $1.4 billion annually, and climate change is only mentioned twice as an afterthought in the budget. From this budget announcement, there were no plans on how Canada is to transition away from a fossil-based economy towards renewable energy that was strongly urged by the International Energy Agency in November 2011. However, the Conservatives did manage to cut Environment Canada by more than $150 million over the next three years. They also

cut the National Roundtable for the Environment and the Economy, our federal voice for sustainable economic development. In the fall of 2011, NRTEE reported that climate change is going to cost our economy $5 billion a year by 2020. It looks like the Conservatives "picked a winner" in fossil fuels and the loser is the environment. This is not an impressive budget. Cathy Orlando Project Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby Canada Greater Sudbury

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 5, 2012

EDITORIAL, APRIL 4, 2012

Climate change: It’s like weather on steroids By Judy Fahys Utah is suffering a kind of snow whiplash because of recent extremes. Last year, the state with the “greatest snow on Earth” was true to its name. At the Alta Guard Station in Little Cottonwood Canyon, about 553 inches fell where 495 inches has been the norm during the past 66 years. This winter, the exact opposite occurred. In early April, with two weeks left in the official snow season, the state was on track to have the least snowy year on record — or just slightly more than the all-time low — with just 315 inches of snowfall for the season. Climate scientists resist talking about the short term, like the whiplash trends of the past two seasons. They insist that’s too little data to make a generalization about climate trends, which are normally viewed in the context of 30 y ears or more. Still, the recent extremes here and elsewhere — like the heat records broken last month and last year’s intense tornado season — fall into the patterns predicted for a warming world, for climate change. To help understand the concepts, a video from the National Center for Atmospheric Research offers an unexpected analogy — baseball — explaining how greenhouse gases are affecting the world’s climate, acting like the steroids of the climate system. Scientist Gerald “Jerry” Meehl tells how an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by humans is altering climate behavior and statistics. The “weather on steroids” analogy originated with Jeff Masters, Anthony Broccoli and other climate scientists. The video was developed by Noah Besser and produced [and copyrighted] by UCAR Communications for AtmosNews: NCAR & UCAR Science.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 1, 2012

Environmentalists are free-market fans, too A recent letter accused environmentalists of being wishful thinkers, lacking solutions to the climate/energy crisis. I'm an environmentalist. I'm also a freemarket advocate. And I count on modern-day energy. I see a sweet spot where energy production, environmental protection and economic prosperity intersect. Any right, left or middle-of-the-road economist will tell you: That sweet spot exists in market integrity. Include in the price of fossil fuels their costs to society: health care (asthma from smog), road congestion, climate change (from too much carbon dioxide), military (from our need to protect oil interests in the Middle East) and regulations. Let the free market do the rest. Watch as U.S. innovation fine-tunes wind turbines, adopts Morocco's underground energy storage ideas and creates a smarter energy grid. Delight in the enthusiasm of investors who see more green in green. Celebrate as big

investors bet big on clean-energy projects. Say bye-bye to the idea of government trying to play the investor game. Take pride in renewed U.S. leadership on humanity's biggest problem â&#x20AC;&#x201D; global warming and climate change. How about this: Tax what you burn, not what you earn. We learned in Richmond, back in the days when the cigarette tax went into effect, that people stop using things that cost more money. Do we want more income? Stop taxing income. Do we want less pollution? Start taxing pollution. Elegant. Simple. Brilliant. Congress is currently sitting on the Save Our Climate Act. It is in the Ways and Means Committee, waiting for our congressmen and -women to champion it. I'm ready for congressional climate champions! How about you? Ellie Sparks, Citizens Climate Lobby, Richmond Chapter

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

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 newgeneration 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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 29, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

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

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 25, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 23, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 23, 2012

Newton: Focus energy policy on carbon In his March 16 column, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Key stone pipeline was a missed opportunity ,â&#x20AC;? 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 nobrainer. GARY RUCINSKI Newton The writer is the founder of the Boston Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 22, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 19, 2012

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 18, 2012

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

Opinion: Faith Communities Care for the Planet

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.'' Photo courtesy of the Christ Congregation Church, Princeton

By Ellie Whitney 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.

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.

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 16, 2012

[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.

OPED, MARCH 16, 2012

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 percapita 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 wellknown 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.

NEWS ITEM, MARCH 14, 2012

Speaker urges action against climate change About 100 people snacked on brownies Tuesday night as they listened to not-sosweet 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 13, 2012

Reduce oil consumption Here we go again. Gas prices rise, people start to change their transportation methods; then gas prices fall, and people buy gasguzzling 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 9, 2012

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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Groundhog Day,â&#x20AC;? 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 8, 2012

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 gasguzzling 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.

NEWS REPORT, MARCH 8, 2012

It’s getting hot in here Al Gore-coached climate change speaker delivers the goods in Red Bluff By Vic Cantu “Tonight I’m going to talk about our civilization and how to save it.” Thus began a two-hour multimedia presentation about climate change by Dr. Peter Joseph held at the Red Bluff Community Center Friday, March 2. Joseph is a member of former Vice President Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. As one might expect during a talk by someone Gore trained for the task, there was at least one vocal critic in the crowd. “I know several of you think this is all a crock and I welcome it,” Joseph said early on. A co-founder of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the anti-nuclear-weapons group Physicians for Social Responsibility, Joseph quickly informed the approximately 100 attendees about the lethal dangers of deforestation, autos and factories that use oil and gas and spew carbon-dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The heat generated by these sources is melting ice caps and increasing sea levels, threatening the homes, land and livelihoods of those who live nearby. Levels of CO2 are higher today than at any time in the past 800,000 years, Joseph said, and at current rates are expected to double in the next 35 years. “We’re at a tipping point,” he said. “Our biggest worry today is not a nuclear winter but a carbon summer.” At that point a middle-aged man lowered his head, raised his fist to his mouth and made a mock coughing sound as he shouted, “Bullshit!” Several alarmed audience members turned toward him, and when a woman admonished him he retorted, “What, I can cough, can’t I?”

Dr. Peter Joseph PHOTO BY VIC CANTU More on Joseph: Dr. Peter Joseph is an emergency physician who has long championed social responsibility. His next Northern California talk is scheduled for April 18 in McCloud. Go totinyurl.com/peterjosephtalksjosephtalks for more info. Related websites: ClimateRealityProject.org www.CitizensClimateLobby.org Ignoring the cougher, Joseph showed a brief video of every U.S. president from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama citing the dangers of manmade pollution, including greenhouse gasses. Obama ominously labeled the increasing climate change a national disaster and said it places our nation’s health and safety in jeopardy. At this point the cougher, who’d been squirming in his seat, again said, “Bullshit!” as he stood up and stormed out of the room. That proved to be the night’s final outburst. Joseph addressed skeptics by showing slides documenting that virtually all science

academies and 97 percent of climatologists concur on the manmade causes and dangers of global climate change. He also showed a colored graph featuring five different levels of public opinion on climate change, from “Alarmed” on the far left to “It’s a crock” on the far right. When he asked if anyone fit into the “crock” category, no one raised a hand, but a few exclaimed, “He just left.” Joseph said that by the end of his talk he hoped some would shift their attitudes closer to the graph on the left. He also said that skeptic groups such as the Heartland Institute and The George C. Marshall Institute are funded by large petroleum and corporate interests with profit-driven motives. In past decades such groups lobbied legislators heavily to convince them that tobacco and secondhand smoke were harmless, despite documentation that showed 100 million died worldwide from smoking in the 1900s. However, the skeptics are a strong force, as evidenced by a Red Bluff school’s recent refusal to allow Joseph to speak there. His talk was bolstered with graphics and videos, such as a photo of a hypodermic needle with a quotation by former President George Bush Jr. that read, “We’re addicted to oil.” Joseph recounted how as a physician he’d treated many military veteran addicts who engaged in behavior that could kill them. “We’re like that, except we use fossil fuels,” he said. The root of the problem is that so many of the world’s 7 billion people use energygulping devices to live, such as light bulbs, stoves and automobiles. Many of the products are made in factories that are a major source of CO2 gasses. One graph featured a scientific study showing that even if we completely stopped the output of CO2 gasses now, the earth’s dangerous temperature increases would not stabilize for another 1,000 years. “The question is not if we’ll have deadly global warming, but how fast it will happen,” Joseph warned.

The talk was not all doom and gloom. A political commercial of conservative presidential candidate Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch with Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi decrying global warming made the audience laugh. On the serious side, Joseph lamented the lack of public discourse on the subject, saying that in the past year the three biggest television networks had dedicated a total of only 32 minutes of news time to climate change. Additionally, though President Obama is a firm believer, Joseph criticized him for seldom addressing the issue. He emphasized that since the ice age ended 10,000 years ago the earth’s climate has stayed relatively stable. It was not until the industrial age in the 1800s that scientists noticed consistent, long-term temperature increases. He said the largest contributors per person are in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia and Canada. On the hopeful side, he emphasized that no civilization has possessed knowledge of its past, present and future as accurately as ours does. He said that allows us to clearly see the dangerous road we’re headed down and gives us the power to change it. Among several steps to help solve the problem was an admonition to develop political willpower. He advised citizens to push politicians and businesses to convert to clean energy such as solar and wind power. He also encouraged implementation of a carbon tax and joining his Climate Change Reality Project. “We need a sense of urgency like we had the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor,” Joseph said. When one woman questioned the use of windmills because they can kill birds, Joseph replied, “Yes, everything has a cost. Windmills have been known to kill some birds, but global warming will make them extinct.”

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 8, 2012

When science speaks Re Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 evidencebased research, what does this mean for Canada? Cheryl McNamara Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 7, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 7, 2012

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. NOAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 6, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

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 climatechanging 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 cosponsor 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

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 (RMount 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. Our best move is to adopt a market solution: a carbon fee-and-dividend system that imposes a gradually rising fee on the carbon that enters our economy in fuels and 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2O12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

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, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 1, 2012

Sun has all the energy we need, and we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

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,

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

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 capand-trade approach, as the price on carbon is transparent and predictable.

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.

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

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.

The benefits to the nation are numerous â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 newgeneration 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the last

For additional information, and to find out how you can be involved, contact Jim F. Chamberlain, jfchamb@ou.edu, or Catherine Hobbs, chobbs@ou.edu.

Jim F. Chamberlain, research engineer Water Technologies for Emerging Regions Center, 0U

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 21, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 20, 2012

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-ecofriendly 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 â&#x20AC;Ś 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 Lobbyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 10, 2012

I'm dreaming of a perfect Earth Regarding your editorial, "Important if true": I would be so relieved if the science on global warming was overturned and we found that pollution had no negative effect on Earth. Zero, zilch, nada, absolutely nothing to worry about.

I'll close my eyes, snuggle under my blanket and dream that very scenario. If I'm lucky, in that dream, pretty ladies in swimsuits will offer me pi単a coladas and make me perfectly comfortable. Dan Lewis Richmond

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 8, 2012

Big costs to oilsands’ dirty oil Re Keystone kerfuffle won’t stop energy boom (Viewpoint: Chicago Tribune, Feb. 6) The development and transportation of Alberta’s tarsands comes with short- and long-term costs. These will greatly exceed the short-term benefits to Canada and the rest of the world, with the exception of big oil profiteers. What seems most striking is the inequity of the distribution of those costs and benefits. The Chicago Tribune editorial points out the likely financial beneficiaries of our dirty oil will be the oilmen and workers in the U.S. (and/or China) who will gain employment

and make profits by adding value to dirty oil. Canadians will be lost in the polluted dust. The costs, including downriver pollution, pipeline leaks and oil spills from shipping accidents will fall on the shoulders of Canadian ecosystems including the people living there. Costs to the U.S. and China will only be indirect, a result of the additional global climate change inflicted on the world through the extraction and consumption of dirty oil. James S. Quinn Hamilton

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 6, 2012

Put price on carbon to reflect true costs of fossil fuels I DON’T disagree with those who feel that a lack of publicity is in part responsible for the problems affecting NStar’s renewable energy program. However, reporter David Abel has identified the main culprit: “falling fossil fuel prices.’’ Putting a price on carbon to make fossil fuels reflect their true negative costs to our

health and environment would surely be the best way to stimulate interest, and investment, in renewable energy. It’s the path America needs to take.

READING “GREEN electricity finds few customers in Mass.’’ (Page A1, Jan. 31), one could come away with the impression that NStar’s program is just another green energy market failure. Given news like this, Americans could be forgiven for concluding that green energy is still not ready to replace fossil fuels. On the other hand, what new product has ever succeeded by apparently being more expensive than established options? I say “apparently’’ because fossil fuels enjoy many explicit and implicit subsidies that hide their true costs to society. If these could be taken out of the equation, green energy would become much more affordable by comparison. Utilities would no longer have to

appeal to their customers’ altruism to sell energy from wind or other renewable sources. Economists agree that the best way to account for the subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels is to introduce a tax on their carbon content. This is the intent of H.R. 3242, a bill introduced by Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat. By taxing carbon and returning a large percentage of proceeds to households, this bill would ensure that Americans will have the means to satisfy their energy needs as the green energy revolution begins for real.

D.R. Tucker Brockton

Robin Finnegan Boston

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 5, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012

Energy, Environment the Real Issues on Keystone Pipeline Trying to sell the Keystone pipeline on the basis of jobs strikes me as misguided and a sign of desperation (“Keystone error,” letter, Jan. 26). According to a Cornell University study, the pipeline would actually cost jobs by diverting us from developing renewable energy. The real issues here are energy and the environment, and the way big oil routinely buys politicians to get its way. In December, the House voted 234-194 to force a faster review of the pipeline, then attached its demand to the must-pass payroll tax cut.

We now know the 234 representatives who voted for this move had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 “no” votes received only $8 million. Coincidence? Corporate money is buying government policy and preventing us from solving urgent problems — most important, global warming. We desperately need clean, alternative energy. And we need honest assessments of the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline and similar ventures, free from financial and ideological bias. Tony Giordano Fair Haven

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012

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 fullscale development of the Alberta tar sands, known around the world as the source of “dirty oil.” Patricia Weese Red Lake

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 3, 2012

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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. Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it time that the government prioritize clean energy and join the 21st century? Jane Moffat Toronto

OPED, 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

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. Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it time that the government prioritize clean energy and join the 21st century? Jane Moffat Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

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.

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.

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.

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.

For more than 20 years, climate scientists have been warning of more extreme (weird)

Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2 – 8, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

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

For more than 20 years, climate scientists have been warning of more extreme (weird)

Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

Renewable energy laws are exploited Ivy Main shares a critically important message in her Op/Ed column, "Keep renewables, or repeal the law." Although Virginia's renewable-energy law was created with noble intentions, the utility companies' exploitation of the law has turned it into a poorly disguised, expensive act of green-washed hypocrisy. Virginia's renewable-energy law was created to encourage development of the renewable-energy industry, create cleanenergy jobs and helping curb the state's greenhouse gas pollution. Yet most of the money that Virginia ratepayers spend on renewable portfolio standards compliance is going to old, out-of-state

generators. This law should be diversifying in-state energy sources, particularly wind and solar energy. Between August 2010 and August 2011, the solar industry grew by 6.8 percent â&#x20AC;&#x201D; compared to the 0.7 percent growth rate of the overall U.S. economy. More than 100,000 Americans are in the solar industry. We need policies that will advance the renewable energy industry in Virginia, help the economy, create new jobs and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Diana Van Vleet Purcellville

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY, 2012

Responsible Judaism and Sustainability In his December 2011 Sh’ma essay, “Sharing a Divergent Path,” Bruce Weinstock, my husband, accurately and respectfully depicts my perspective regarding leaving lights on during Shabbat. In fact, my discomfort extends to other standard practices in observant homes, such as leaving on the oven, the air conditioner, or the heat. When Shabbat is preceded or followed by a chag (holy day), observant families may leave on their electricity for more than 72 hours. As the essay illustrates, my husband and I compromise. Over the years, I have come to appreciate the beauty of creating the self-sufficient Shabbat bubble, which, once initiated, like camping in the woods, doesn’t require support or allow interference from the external world. However, that idyllic construction comes at a cost. The actual consumption is easily measured by the variance in our monthly electric bills; now multiply that by the number of observant households. This practice of consuming unnecessary energy burns fossil fuels and emits carbon into our already warming atmosphere. As my husband states, this seems “antithetical to the idea of conserving and respecting creation.”

Another common practice (less fraught with the question of what is or isn’t malakhah, forbidden Shabbat “creation”) is the weekly reliance at synagogues on paper and plastic ware for Shabbat kiddush-luncheons. In most cases, there are no facilities for recycling or dishwashing. We can reasonably assume that few of these synagogues use renewable energy. Thus, these practices waste resources and damage the planet, and they demonstrate to our children that such waste is acceptable and even encouraged in the name of faith. As Jews, we should focus on building a world where we don’t cavalierly cut off mountain tops to mine coal, hydro-frack beneath Jewish camps in New York and Pennsylvania, or waste resources just because it’s more convenient. However deep our faith may be, the planet’s capacity to withstand our abuse is finite. As Jewish individuals and leaders, we should develop new practices and compromises that are more sustainable for us and the natural world.

Lisa Kempler Citizens Climate Lobby, Boston www.citizensclimatelobby.org

OPED, JANUARY 31, 2012

Scared of Science By D. R. Tucker When I saw last Friday's Wall Street Journal editorial, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," my first instinct was to burst out laughing. The Journal found a whopping 16 "concerned scientists" who declared that fears about climate change were exaggerated, and that we can just keep on burning as many fossil fuels as we darn well please. The Journal has been pushing climate change "skepticism" for decades, so the editorial was nothing new. What made the piece funny was how lazy the arguments for inaction were. As Peter Frumhoff of the real Union of Concerned Scientists notes, [T]he op-ed repeated a number of deeply misleading claims about climate science. To take just one example, the authors claim there has been a "lack of warming" for 10 years. Here's what we know: 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. Over the past decade, record high temperatures outpaced record lows by more than two to one across the continental United States, a marked increase from previous decades. Those who believe that global warming is a legitimate problem, and even those who are unsure about the seriousness of the problem but who recognize that the phenomenon of global warming is not a hoax, have long since recognized the sort of game the Journal always plays on this issue: just find a couple of "concerned scientists" (usually ones affiliated with libertarian think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry) who

claim that the science isn't settled, and voilĂ , you can successfully declare that there's no real need to take action to reduce carbon emissions. Peter Gleick of Forbes points to another example of the Journal's con game: But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation's preeminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn't publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation. Science magazine -- perhaps the nation's most important journal on scientific issues -published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down. Why does the Journal insist on pushing the idea that science isn't science? Ed Kilgore's theory is compelling: [Y]ou'd think in all this tough-minded truthtelling about those with a financial stake in the climate change debate the Journalmight have noted in passing that the most powerful

economic interests on the planet have an interest in doing nothing about it. But then that's the Journal's core constituency, and I suppose it is predictable its editors remain willing to threaten the credibility of its usually solid news-gathering operation to tell those who would melt the ice caps without a moment's hesitation exactly what they want to hear. However, the Journal has another constituency: those who have adopted the view that global warming is a politically correct issue, something that is promoted by the left to advance big-government goals. I used to be a member of this constituency, until I started studying the facts. My declaration that I no longer believed global warming was some sort of Communist plot led to the end of numerous friendships; I don't regret losing those "friends," as I now realize that the only thing I had in common with those "friends" was the fact that we had mutual political hatreds. Every "friend" who objected to my change of heart on climate saw the global warming debate as an example of political correctness -- and they all saw

themselves as avowed enemies of political correctness. The problem, of course, is that science is not political correctness. My "friends" could not view global warming through a scientific perspective, only through a political perspective. Thus, they could not understand why I no longer shared their view that Al Gore and Carol Browner cooked up global warming as a backdoor way to implement Keynesian economic policies. I laughed at the Journal editorial because I envisioned my former friends lapping up the piece without criticism or skepticism. I laughed because the piece was clearly motivated by the Journal's fear -- fear that the Republican Party's self-destruction will lead to a second term for President Obama, the retention of the Senate by the Democrats, the loss of the GOP majority in the House, and, perhaps, a serious effort toward putting a price on carbon and putting America on the path to cleaner energy. I laughed because the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at, and scorned. D. R. Tucker lives in Boston

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 29, 2012

The bigger picture: Earth’s climate is warming, Ellie Whitney In “Record snowfalls on a ‘warming’ planet” (Jan. 19), a letter writer has a common misconception. He fails to distinguish between weather and climate. The weather is the condition of the atmosphere over days; the climate is the average over decades. It is true that the temperature in Nome, Alaska, on a recent day was a startling 31 degrees below zero. In contrast, the long-term average temperature (over land) of the whole planet has risen by only about 1.5 degrees over the whole past century. The slow warming of the climate is imperceptible amidst such wild swings in weather. No wonder the letter writer thinks that Nome’s subzero temperature indicated that the planet is cooling. But more than 1.5 billion temperature records taken from 200 years of data from nearly 40,000 stations around the world conclusively demonstrate that the

planet has warmed and is continuing to warm. Moreover, it is warming, not cooling, that accounts for the massively heavy snows that so impress the letter writer, because warmer air can carry much more moisture. Global warming has progressed to a dangerous extreme. The International Energy Agency warned late last year that if the nations of the world do not take bold action to reverse our fossil-fuel dependence within the next five years, our economies will be locked irreversibly into an insecure, inefficient and highcarbon energy system that presages major damage to the Earth’s ecosystems and human civilizations. I hope and pray that we will take courage and move decisively to curb our carbon emissions within the year. Ellie Whitney East Windsor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 29, 2012

Keystone debates Rarely have I seen an issue debated so convincingly on both sides as when President Obama decided to deny the Keystone XL pipeline. Bright and thoughtful people have come down decisively on both sides of the debate, as witnessed by the conflicting editorials in the Deseret News ("Bad Keystone Decision," Jan. 23) and the Salt Lake Tribune ("Pipeline pause: Obama right to punt decision," Jan 21). One reason there is such heated debate is that the United States lacks a comprehensive energy policy. Such a policy must approach our national energy needs and at the same time address

climate change caused by burning carbon fuels. Without such a policy, we can have little success ourselves or have significant influence convincing other nations to reduce greenhouse emissions Amory Lovins shows how we can transition off of fossil fuels yet meet U.S. energy needs in his book "Reinventing Fire." (The National Geographicsponsored presentation of his book launch can be viewed on YouTube). If Congress would act on our need and ability to transition off fossil fuels, we wouldn't have to debate the merits of another pipeline. David Folland

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2012

Obama right on pipeline It’s disappointing to see the same, previously discredited talking points repeated by Speaker Boehner in his reaction to President Obama’s rejection of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline (“Obama rejects pipeline”, Jan. 19). Boehner uses the tired energy security and jobs arguments. Let there be no mistake, this is a pipeline through the U.S., not to the U.S. This is about oil companies maximizing profits as there is already an existing pipeline (Keystone) from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries in the Midwest. This pipeline to landlocked refineries has created a supply glut in the Midwest, dropping prices. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast assures the oil gets to the world market where top dollar can be gained. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, The U.S. now exports over 3 million barrels a day (Mbpd) of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and petroleum coke and some 72%, over 2.2 Mbpd, comes out of the Gulf Coast. Speaker Boehner’s “tens of thousands of jobs lost” argument is based on overinflated

job estimates from TransCanada. TransCanada itself admits only “hundreds” of permanent jobs will be created while the State Dept. estimates 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs over 2 years and 20 permanent jobs. Speaker Boehner also failed to mention that 1) although TransCanada (a foreign company) has yet to receive a permit to build the pipeline; the company has filed numerous eminent domain lawsuits against American citizens to condemn properties of landowners who won’t give right-of-ways. 2) The Keystone has leaked 35 times in its first year of operation. 3) Our top climate scientist James Hansen called the development of Alberta’s dirty tar sands oil “essentially game over” for any hope of achieving a stable climate. Thank you President Obama for standing up to dirty energy, now let’s get busy on clean, renewable energy. Jon Clark York

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 28, 2012

Transition to clean energy is our next evolutionary step In the recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama correctly identifies green energy as an opportunity to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. According to the Solar Foundation, the U.S. economy created more than 100,000 solar jobs from 2010 to 2011, growing by 6.8 percent at a time when the overall economy grew by just 0.7 percent. Some of those jobs are coming to Northwest Indiana through Lincoln Solar's new 6,800-panel Merrillville solar plant. Job benefits aside, American-made energy enhances our security. Reliance on foreign energy sources can leave our security and economy vulnerable.

Renewable wind and solar energy is abundant, clean and can be made right here in America. The technology is in its infancy but has great potential. Germany, for example, now gets 20 percent of its total national energy use from renewable sources. Transition to clean energy is our next evolutionary step as a civilization. It is our duty as citizens to ensure that our elected officials seize this opportunity through tax credits, high energy efficiency standards and smart legislation referred to in Obama's State of the Union. Chris M. Shepherd Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicagoland Chapter, Chicago

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2012

Phase out coal The Bureau of Land Management should protect our land from the expansion of the Alton Coal Mine rather than permit it to move forward. Although there are many reasons why this would create a significant negative impact to the local area, in a broader context, the most compelling issue is the emissions that would be created by the coal that would be extracted. We need to be phasing out the use of coal as an energy source and focus on the development of renewable forms of energy instead. We must consider the benefit to our natural

surroundings and the health and wellbeing of all people by preventing further expansion of this mine. The BLM's stated mission is "to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." We are at a time in history where it is critical that we consider the long-term consequences of burning coal over the short-term financial gain for the sake of future generations. Bill Barron Salt Lake City

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2012

Climate change All presidents since Richard Nixon have promised clean energy, and all presidents since George H.W. Bush have promised to tackle climate change. On Tuesday night, President Obama referred to climate change only to declare how impossible it is to tackle it in the coming year. He was too polite to openly call out those lawmakers who have created this sad situation by embracing anti-science propaganda and misleading the American public to please their big campaign contributors. This has to change. Symptoms of progressing climate deterioration have now exceeded scientists' prediction of a few years ago. Arctic

sea ice continues to shrink. The frequency of extreme weather events have grown dramatically, just as predicted by the climate models. Last year, the U.S. had more billion-dollar weather disasters than ever before. Worldwide greenhouse emissions were the highest in history. We are drawing dangerously close to irreversible tipping points. These socalled external costs are not accounted for in fuel and power costs, but are nonetheless exacted from society through higher health care, infrastructure and disaster relief costs. These costs will continue to grow. Rick Knight

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 27, 2012

Re: Rejection of oil pipeline costs jobs, energy security Regarding the January 29th Featured Letter "Rejection of oil pipeline costs jobs, energy security" I would like to address some points that were made. This pipeline will not enhance our economic viability or provide energy independence. Keystone XL is intended to be an export pipeline to assist the Canadian government in accessing foreign markets. A high ranking Canadian government official has publicly stated "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that." Putting this pipeline in place would facilitate the transport of oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported, most likely to China. Valero Energy, one of the largest potential customers, has stated that this is exactly what they planned to do.

The promise of thousands of new jobs is also overstated. For starters, TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis, so if one person works for two years it counts as 2 jobs. In addition, about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed in Canada , where $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill. The number of permanent new jobs to be gained by this project, as per a VP from Transcanada, is in "the hundreds". "Environmental extremists" do not dictate President Obama's energy policy. This decision reflects the President's refusal to allow Big Oil and the politicians it has bought to influence a decision clearly not in the best interests of the United States. Michael Morton, Brick

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 cocoordinator 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.

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)

(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.x pd?bill=h112-3242) needs support in Congress. It will take human energy and a focus on doing the right thing, not the convenient thing.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 25, 2012

Obama's decision on pipeline was brave Re: the Jan. 19 article "Kibosh on oil pipeline for now." Your front-page article on President Obama's brave tar sands pipeline decision never mentioned the central issue -global warming! That's why 1,252 of us got arrested outside the White House this summer, including leading climate scientists. The pipeline would open another pool of oil equal to Saudia Arabia and perpetuate the world's dependence on fossil fuels. These fuels emit carbon, which causes global warming. Rising temperatures have already made dust storms, forest fires and droughts the new normal for our state.

To reduce these problems and provide our grandchildren with a habitable planet, we must conserve energy and switch to renewables, e.g. solar - now. Oil companies profit from the pipeline, which explains their spin about job creation and energy independence. Actually, the pipeline company predicted only a few hundred permanent jobs. and the oil goes to a duty-free port for more profitable export. Jim Driscoll Executive director, National Institute for Peer Support, Tucson

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 ccl.sudbury@citizensclimatelobby.org. 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.

350 or bust BLOG, JANUARY 24, 2012

Affadavit: PM Harper’s Office Labels Environmental Charity “Enemy of Canada” By Christine Penner Polle Andrew Frank is a Canadian citizen, and the former Senior Communications Manager with ForestEthics Canada. He is also an instructor in the Environmental Protection Technology program at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, in Surrey, British Columbia. Mr Frank released this letter addressed to Canadians yesterday: A Whistleblower’s Open Letter to the Citizens of Canada My name is Andrew Frank. I grew up in a small town in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia. My granddad taught me how to fish. My father was a well‐respected lawyer known for his unwavering integrity, and my mother was a favourite kindergarten teacher. Both have always impressed upon me the importance of telling the truth. Today, I am taking the extraordinary step of risking my career, my reputation and my personal friendships, to act as a whistleblower and expose the undemocratic and potentially illegal pressure the Harper government has apparently applied to silence critics of

the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil tanker/pipeline plan. As I have detailed in a sworn affidavit, no less than three senior managers with TidesCanada and ForestEthics (a charitable project of Tides Canada), have informed me, as the Senior Communications Manager for ForestEthics, that Tides Canada CEO, Ross McMillan,was informed by the Prime Minister’s Office, that ForestEthics is considered an “Enemy of the Government of Canada,” and an “Enemy of the people of Canada.” This language was apparently part of a threat by the Prime Minister’s Office to challenge the charitable status of Tides Canada if it did not agree to stop funding ForestEthics, specifically its work opposing oil sands expansion and construction of oil sands/pipeline routes in Canada. This is especially concerning because ForestEthics is a legally registered intervenor in the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel process, currently examining the Enbridge oil tanker/pipeline proposal. By attempting to silence a registered participant in the review, I fear the Harper government may have

permanently damaged the integrity of this process. After waiting more than two weeks for Tides Canada to go public with this story, it has become clear to me that the organization is too afraid of reprisals from the government to act. Tides is responsible for the employment of hundreds of Canadians and dozens of crucial environmental projects like the Great Bear Rainforest, and has been understandably paralyzed in challenging the Prime Minister’s Office on this matter. I, on the other hand, am speaking out as a private citizen because I feel that the rights and civil liberties of my fellow Canadian citizens, including freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are at risk. There was a look of fear and disbelief on my fellow staff members’ faces the day they were told our own government had labelled them enemies of the state. Our administration coordinator had tears in her eyes. In the days that followed, our employees couldn’t sleep well. They lost their appetites, and they began to fear for their own personal safety and civil liberties, and those of their families and loved ones. They began looking over their shoulders, out of fear and paranoia, because their own government might be watching them. The language of anti-terrorism, when applied to Canadian citizens who legitimately question the wisdom of an unsustainable oil tanker/pipeline plan, is an affront to the rights of all Canadians. It is the language of bullying. It is language that is violent and above the law, and harkens to previous examples of RCMP surveillance of Canadians for

political rather than legal purposes, including Tommy Douglas. The casual use of such loaded language at the top of our government is immoral, unethical and probably illegal. A strongly opposed oil tanker/pipeline plan is now the least of this government’s worries. In its heavy-handed attempt to override public opposition, the government has breached the public’s trust. I now invite Canadians, including the media and members of the House of Commons, to challenge the unacceptable behaviour described in this letter and sworn in my affidavit. Approximately three weeks from now, Mr. Harper will visit China on an official state visit. In China, Amnesty International asserts that a half‐ million “enemies of the government” are held in prisons without charge. If the argument in favour of the Enbridge pipeline is that Canada stands to make billions selling oil to an oppressive Chinese government, then my answer is “no, thank you. That’s not ethical oil,” especially when profiting from this oil wealth requires repressive tactics against critical citizens—tactics we would normally associate with the Chinese state, not Canada. The events of the last month have ensured that I will never take my rights as a Canadian citizen for granted again. That is both sad and encouraging. Sad that I ever had to question them, and encouraging because I have been reminded of another lesson taught to me by my parents: the best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. I invite you to join me in expressing your voice on what is perhaps the

most pressing moral crisis facing our nation today. Together we can hold this government to account and prevent the dismantling of Canadian civil society and the further erosion of citizens’ rights. ForestEthics has responded with Our Statement On Recent Threats to Canadian Civil Society, and Andrew Frank’s Open Letter: Today’s stories in the press are just the next shoe to drop in a targeted campaign by the oil industry and the Harper government to silence Canadians who are concerned about the controversial Enbridge pipeline. The interests of the few, including massive multinational corporations that own large investments in the Tar Sands, are being put above the citizens and First Nations who oppose highly controversial projects like the Tar Sands that threaten the health and well-being of Canada’s future generations.I am Canadian, and along with thousands of other Canadians I have deep concerns about the Enbridge pipeline and super tankers on our coast and am horrified that my government is threatening to disband the hearings in order to quell opposition. Enbridge’s legacy of pipeline spills – and efforts to distance itself from any responsibility for them – raises serious concerns for all Canadians. This is a company that repeatedly puts corporate profits over

responsibility to local communities, and Canadians won’t stand for it. Yet the Harper government has suggested that the 4,500+ people who are raising concerns should not be heard. This pipeline is not being built to transport oil. It is proposed to transport diluted bitumen. This is a substance that is so corrosive that it is not a question of if an oil spill will happen, it is a question of when. When those leaks or a tanker spill happens, Canadian taxpayers will be left with the legacy – and the bill. This pipeline puts Canada’s lush west coast at risk from tanker spills as well as the fragile Great Bear Rainforest, which First Nations have called home for thousands of years. We share these concerns with Andrew Frank, who is clearly concerned about the government trying to silence Canadians. Andrew worked with us for many years and was a valued part of this organization. He is no longer a member of ForestEthics’ staff because he violated the confidence of the organization, and we are unable to carry out our work without a solid foundation of trust between colleagues. But the bigger picture remains: It is a dark and chilling day for Canadians when our government tries to silence and intimidate non profit organizations like ForestEthics, and the thousands of citizens and civil groups who, like us, are concerned about the direction this country is taking and are speaking out.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012

EDITORIAL, JANUARY 23, 2012

Republicans' pipeline stunt backfires By the Editorial Board

May 6, 2010--- A biker rides by the a sign for the Keystone pipeline on the Madison County Transit Watershed Trail in Edwardsville. The Keystone pipeline will carry crude oil from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta to the Wood River refinery in Roxana and on to Patoka, Illinois. The Keystone pipeline will carry crude oil from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta to the Wood River refinery in Roxana and on to Patoka, Illinois. Emily Rasinski erasinski@post-dispatch.com The Obama administration last week denied an oil company's application to expand an existing pipeline network between the United States and Canada.

It was the right decision for many reasons, although President Barack Obama's statement tied it solely to a

legislative stunt pulled last month by congressional Republicans. During political maneuvering over extending payroll tax reductions and unemployment benefits, Republicans inserted a clause setting a February deadline for a decision on the controversial cross-border Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department, however, already had said it would take until 2013 to complete its review of the controversial application. The Republicans' rushed timetable, the president said on Wednesday, doomed the project. TransCanada, the Calgary-based company that applied for the expansion permit, has indicated that it will file a new application. In the meantime, here are some points to bear in mind: • Heavy, hot, corrosive crude oil from tar sands deposits in northern Alberta already is slogging from Canada to the United States in TransCanada's existing 1,600-mile pipeline system, sometimes called Keystone 1. It crosses three Canadian provinces and seven U.S. states, including Missouri and Illinois, generating considerable activity at ConocoPhillips' Wood River Refinery at Roxana and an oil storage facility at Patoka, in Marion County, Ill. Another operational spur of Keystone 1 drops down to Cushing, Okla., a major choke-point for oil pipelines. Mr. Obama's statement acknowledged the need to develop additional pipeline capacity between Cushing and oil refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Such an extension would not require a federal construction permit because it would not cross an international border. • Aspects of the State Department's earlier, incomplete review of the Keystone XL expansion proposal were tainted. For example, emails released as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests documented numerous questionable contacts between

government officials and a TransCanada lobbyist who had worked on the 2008 presidential campaign of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The whiff of conflict of interest also had attached itself to the proposal's environmental impact statements, which the Environmental Protection Agency had found seriously deficient. Those documents were prepared for TransCanada, with State Department clearance, by a company with which it has a long-standing financial relationship. • Job creation has been a key part of the sales pitch for Keystone XL, touted by Trans-Canada, the oil, chemical, minerals and mining industries, Republicans, some Democrats and labor unions. Not surprisingly, a company hired by TransCanada dutifully produced a report touting the equivalent of 120,000 fulltime jobs, but a State Department analysis found only about 2,500 jobs per year for two years. Other studies pointed out that pipeline construction is fairly specialized work and would require experienced crews rather than unemployed local workers along the pipeline route. In any case, an analysis by Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations was unable to find independent verification of the TransCanada-subsidized numbers and found them wildly inflated. Yes, Mr. Obama had hoped to avoid making a decision on Keystone XL until after November's election; environmentalists in his political base oppose the pipeline, and some of his union backers support it. But if Republicans had hoped to back the president into a political corner by creating an artificial deadline for a decision, they actually gave him a perfect excuse to say no — and someone else to blame for it. Posted in The-platform on Monday, January 23, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012

Artificially low prices addicting The growing controversy over the proposed oil sands pipeline (Wednesday article, "Obama will reject Keystone oil pipeline, administration official says") is just the latest manifestation of our national confusion around oil and environmental policy. We bicker, and faction, and fail to see where we can agree. Oil is vitally important, but also our albatross when it comes to the wealth of our nation, the environment, and international relations. We often agree that our demand for oil is too high. But here's the kicker: our high demand is in a large part due to low pricing. That's correct, the apparent cost of a gallon of gas is not the real cost. Not seen at the pump is the price for: subsidies, military protection (including wars), and environmental problems, including our health. Our leaders, understandably, won't

suggest that we pay the true (higher) cost for a gallon of gas -- too politically risky. The irony is, we pay a higher cost anyway -- we just don't see it. Somehow, we need to see the real price of oil -- correct price signals, as they say. Otherwise, it's business as usual; we're complacent, and always "over a barrel." I encourage you to find out more about what can be done to face up to the real cost of oil, but to do it in a way that avoids burdening us any more than we already are. Check out a couple of organizations that inform consumers about progressive oil-pricing: www.climatelobby.com/ www.carbontax.org/ Dare to agree on oil-pricing policy. Kick-oil! And, please, don't forget to contact our leaders! Lee James Citizens Climate Lobby Whidbey Island

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012

What are they hiding? Re: Harper Uses Anti-Grit Strategy on Enviros — CJ online, Jan. 19: I believe Canadians will see through the Harper government’s “communications strategy” (aka bullying tactics). In particular, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s assertion that our government “of the people” would look to alter the rules and circumvent the pipeline review process so that said “people” will have less time to share their concerns is deeply disturbing. Such an attempt to muzzle the populace strikes fear and suspicion into the heart of this Canadian. What is our government trying to hide? Where is the promised transparency? Which “people” does it represent? Apparently not those who desire that it be held accountable.

Is this an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes in some sort of sleight of hand? If these “ethical oil” projects are so wonderful for the health and wealth of Canadians, should they not welcome scrutiny? Ethical indeed! Are the billions pouring in from China and elsewhere to further tar sands development and the economic growth of those countries really in Canada’s best interest? While they gain a strong investment foothold and “controlling” interest in Canada’s North, what will we do when these “controlling” interests exert the control they have purchased? Is our government selling us out to the highest bidder? What is Canada worth these days, thirty pieces of silver? Valerie Blab Red Lake

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 22, 2012

The right decision on pipeline President Barack Obama made the right decision in denying the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline (Jan. 19). The construction of the pipeline would have created a mere 4,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs - far fewer than the inflated 100,000 reported by some advocates of the pipeline. The denial of the permit is also an important component of transitioning from a carbon-based economy so as to advert the worst consequences of global warming. But more is needed: A fee must also be placed on carbon, starting at $15 per ton and increasing incrementally year over year for 10 years. The revenues from this fee should be returned to households (so

that the policy would be revenue neutral). This will encourage private capital to invest in low carbon technologies. Further, to protect American industry against competition from nations that do not place a fee on carbon, we should place border adjustments on the import and export of goods. This policy is called "feeand-dividend," and it's the best way to avoid catastrophic climate change. The building of these new technologies will add far more jobs to the economy than the Keystone XL pipeline would have. Ross Astoria Kenosha

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 21, 2012

Science, politics and ‘the culture war’ It says something profound — and profoundly depressing — about our political culture that scientific facts have become part of the so-called “culture war.” Kudos to Michael Gerson for pointing out how illogical this is. However, it was wrong to suggest that dealing with climate change does not require “a specific political response.” Only by putting a price on carbon can we begin transitioning to the renewable energy sources that will bring about a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) has taken a bold step by introducing the Save Our Climate Act, which will launch this transition while reducing our deficit in the process. It is this “specific political response” that will allow America to demonstrate global leadership in the fight against climate change. D.R. Tucker Brockton, Mass. The writer is a member of the Boston chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 19, 2012

Trying to teach climate change Re "Classrooms feel climate skepticism," January 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

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.

EDITORIAL, JANUARY 17, 2012

Taking inventory Target for a better climate Human beings like to count things. It helps us understand where we are, which helps us figure out what we want to do next. One thing that was worth counting was the sources of the greenhouse-gas emissions that are mucking up the centuries-old balance of global factors that determine our weather. Such an inventory has just been made public by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and, to nobody’s surprise, it fingers coal-fired power plants as the biggest generator of climate-changing carbon dioxide and other substances. Across the country, industrial sources belch the equivalent of 3.2 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. Power plants alone accounted for 2.3 billion of those tons. There were 100 sites that were big enough, or dirty enough, to produce at least 7 million metric tons each, and 96 of them were power plants. Two of them are in Utah. They are the Intermountain Power Plant in Delta (12 million tons) and the Hunter power plant in Castle Dale (9 million tons). So, now we know the coordinates on which to concentrate our fire. Happily, there are several weapons in this arsenal, though some are better than others: • Conservation. This most obvious means of limiting greenhouse-gas

emissions is often overlooked. Somehow it’s not exciting enough. But the cheapest kilowatt, as they say, is the one you don’t use. Advanced building techniques, updated building codes and other technological fixes can slow the growth, or even reduce demand, for energy. • Cleaner fuels. Natural gas, which the United States has in abundance, produces electricity with 40 percent less greenhouse-gas emissions than coal. There are environmental downsides to extracting much of that gas, what with valid worries about the side effects of techniques with scarysounded names like hydraulic fracking. There are also theories about how coal could be burned in ways that reduce, or capture, the carbon emissions, but they are no more than experimental at this stage. • Carbon taxes. The best way to move carbon-free sources of power online is to make them costcompetitive with fossil fuels. And the best way to do that is to tax carbon emissions. The added cost will discourage the use of such fuels, and the money could go to either new energy research and development, or into the Social Security Trust Fund to offset the impact the taxes would have on working families. Whatever means we choose to cut down these gases, the new inventory

shows us where the most target-rich environment is to be found. It should

be everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s business to get the efforts started.

JANUARY 15, 2012

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

OPED, JANUARY 12, 2012

Flood Costs Stretch Budget The threat of flooding is slicing deeply into the city’s water and sewer budget as staff struggle to deal with stormwater issues after a new impervious surface fee was rejected by councillors last year. More than a quarter of this year’s capital budget funded by water rates will go instead to responding to the increasing frequency and severity of storms in Hamilton, and additional funds are being used from the operating budget as well as being set aside for compassionate grants to expected future flood victims. Since 2005, more than 15 severe storms – likely exacerbated by climate change – have inundated Hamilton homes, triggered the city’s $1000 compassionate grant program, and generated demands for flood prevention measures. At least six of those exceeded the once–in–25–years category, and two topped the 100– year mark. The latest major storm – and only one generating residential flooding last year – struck the west mountain on July 23, 2011 and was approved for compassionate grants at the December council meeting. Council established an independent expert panel in September 2005 after 1700 homes were flooded. That led to the Storm Emergency Response Group

(SERG) a multi–disciplinary staff committee that “reviews and develops responses to severe wet weather and flooding” and recommends preventive measures. In 2012, $52 million is earmarked for SERG projects – spending that is forcing delay of water and sewer system maintenance and upgrades according to operations manager Dan MacKinnon. “The fact that 26 percent of the 2012 water wastewater capital budget is dedicated to storms is a significant amount of funding,” he told councillors last month, “and it’s certainly placing pressure on us to move water and wastewater projects out a little further so that we can absorb the funding for the storm projects.” MacKinnon and city finance staff both stressed that water rates are not designed to deal with stormwater problems. “There’s no correlation between water consumption and our costs associated with dealing with storms and severe wet weather, so that’s one of the challenges that we have is to identify a way to capture funding for storm projects in Hamilton,” explained MacKinnon in an apparent reference to council’s 2010 refusal to approve a

staff recommended special stormwater fee. That fee would have applied to all property owners, but would have had a particular impact on businesses and institutions with large surface parking lots whose current contribution is based solely on how much water they consume, not on the amount of rain that runs off their properties. With that plan turned down, staff are now looking at other options to cover stormwater costs and flooding grants. Finance chief Rob Rossini said that in addition to the capital spending about $20 million of the water and sewer operating budget is currently going to stormwater issues. The staff report also notes “utilizing $5.7 million in total from the reserve in years 2011 to 2013 to provide future compassionate flood relief to residential property owners.”

“We’ve acknowledged that water consumption is not a good indicator of the costs or a good levy basis for charging storm,” Rossini declared. “So we need to do something. What that something is we don’t know, but we’ll be examining it in the rate structure review.” More severe rainstorms are one of the predicted effects of global climate change because warm air can hold more water. And while Hamilton was largely spared in 2011, large areas of the United States, Australia, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Central America, the Philippines, South Korea and other areas suffered record deluges. Historic flood levels also imposed severe damage in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as the Richelieu River area of Quebec. Don McLean

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 9, 2012

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 8, 2012

Climate-change naysayers distract U.S. from action The Jan.1 letter to the editor, “Scores of scientists agree climate change is fraud,” which denied climate change, did a disservice to your readers and to the dedicated efforts to forestall catastrophic climate change. It flies in the face of the facts and reflects the views of a tiny segment of scientists, and a biased one at that. Causation of something as complex as climate change is extremely difficult to demonstrate, and there is never unanimity in the scientific community. You can always find comparatively small numbers of scientists who dispute even the most widely accepted theories—witness cigarette smoking and cancer. Some scientists continue to deny that smoking causes lung cancer; of course, many of them work for tobacco companies. Many climate change deniers have similar ties to industry, or they lack direct expertise in the complex dynamics of climate. For the compelling facts about climate change we must look to the most credible and authoritative published peer-reviewed science by in-field climate scientists. This published science is summarized in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which conclude that the global warming trend of climate change observed since 1975 is a fact, and that man’s activity is the primary cause. This is not an issue where we should be entertaining differing opinions from lay people, who don’t understand the science. It’s not a matter of opinion. Climate change itself is not a political issue. What is political is what we should do about it. Uninformed opinions only serve to slow us from moving as a country to take the bold actions needed to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that produce climate change. Tony Giordano Adjunct Instructor, Brookdale Community College

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 7, 2012

Winter climate As I was raking the last leaves on my snowless lawn yesterday, I thought, “This is not the kind of winter I remember when I was young.” Indeed, according to “Greatest Snow on Earth? Not this December” (Tribune, Dec. 30), this December was the driest on record. It doesn’t take much recollection to convince oneself that the climate has changed. Why are so few people talking about these climate changes and what they mean for the future? I don’t have the answer, but I’m concerned about the future. Continued use of fossils fuels as our primary sources of energy will only lead to more severe changes, as we put more

greenhouse-trapping carbon dioxide into the air. A solution that has a good chance of slowing the changes is the Save Our Climate Act of 2011, proposed by Rep. Pete Stark, DCalif. His proposal would tax carbon and give most of the proceeds directly back to the American people. Ask your representatives in Congress to support this incentive for clean energy. We won’t be able to restore the Earth to the climate of the past, but we can slow the changes, like those we are seeing this winter. David Folland Sandy

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 5, 2012

Resolve to demand climate-change action Re: The last hope of the baby boomer; There is time to leave a better legacy: Demand action on global warming (Opinion, Dec. 31) Congratulations to the Spec and to Scott Snider for the reminder of the most important way we can make a better world for our children and our grandchildren — demanding real action and real leadership from the Stephen Harper government on climate change. Snider’s article crisply summarized the issue and the political steps we need to take by using our votes to press for action. And there is another, equally important, step we all need to take. The CO2 emissions driving global warming

stem from our growth-oriented consumer society. As many have pointed out, we are in planetary overshoot — consuming more resources and creating more waste every year than the planet can handle. So let’s make two resolutions for a better world: 1. to force our government to take real action on climate change; and 2. to start looking at less consuming ways of living a rich and full life in our community. Dave and Sue Carson

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 3, 2012

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

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."

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.

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

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."

DECEMBER 27, 2011

LETTERS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 26, 2011

King tides roll into Puget Sound Rising tides a global problem Thanks for the article about king tides. [“Grab your camera: King Tides begin arriving Wednesday,” Field Notes blog at seattletimes.com, Dec. 21.] Rising sea levels are already causing problems around the world, from low-lying island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives to U.S. cities like Norfolk, Va., where the city now experiences chronic flooding. The best defense against global warming is a good offense, and the best offense is to attack the problem at its source: the use of fossil fuels. Conservatives and liberals alike have endorsed the idea of a revenueneutral carbon fee, which uses market mechanisms to promote green energy. A rising fee would be placed on carbon-based fuels at the mine or well

and the revenue returned to consumers. This would send a clear price signal to energy markets that fossil fuels will become less competitive over time, while protecting consumers from rising costs. A version of this proposal, the Save Our Climate Act, has been introduced by Rep. Pete Stark of California and endorsed by Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, among others. It applies a portion of the proceeds to deficit reduction and returns the rest to U.S. taxpayers. I applaud McDermott for his support and encourage the rest of Washington’s delegation to follow his example. Davis Oldham Seattle

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 22, 2011

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/sci ence_and_impacts/global_warming_contr arians/debunking-‐misinformation-‐stolen-‐ emails-‐climategate.html . Peg Mitchell San Marcos

READERS WRITE, DEC. 18, 2011

CLIMATE ACT

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011

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

CEDAR RAPIDS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011

READERS WRITE, DEC. 16, 2011

RENEWABLE ENERGY

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 weatherrelated 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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 14, 2011

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

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

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

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 11, 2011

Polluters off the hook? Re: "U.N. panel reaches hard-won agreement" (Dec. 11). It is encouraging that a path forward now exists for an international agreement on climate change, but under the deal completed Sunday in Durban, South Africa, it could be 2020 before the United States, China and India are included, with other nations, in a legally binding pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions. By then we might well have passed the global warming tipping point. The International Energy Agency calls for major changes in the way we produce and use energy by 2017, or we'll be locked into emissions that will push to the edge of a safe climate.

Rep. Pete Stark's Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242) will place a steadily rising tax on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, pushing investment to clean energy where job creation is greatest. Most tax revenue will be returned equally to consumers, shielding us from rising costs during the transition. CO{-2} emissions are projected to decrease 25 percent in 10 years. The United States can lead the world on this path now, greening economies and holding back climate change to a safer zone. Dave Massen San Francisco

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 9, 2011

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 6, 2011

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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-‐

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.

pstack@sltrib.com

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 28, 2011

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

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 23, 2011

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.

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 elinorsparks@gmail.com.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 19, 2011

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

Â 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 cosponsored 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 "revenueneutral" 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 tctvoice@madison.com. 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,

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOV. 10, 2011

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

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

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

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 15, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 14, 2011

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.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 14, 2011

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

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.

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: â&#x20AC;˘

â&#x20AC;˘

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 communitybuilding, 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 highefficiency 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 incomegrowth 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, OCT. 10, 2011

Energy sense Re "Keystone: the wrong question," Editorial, Oct. 6 The Times is correct to assume that the subsidies business. Giving the stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will money back to consumers will shield not decrease the demand for tar sands households from the economic impact oil. The only sure way to decrease of energy costs associated with the demand for carbon-‐based fuels is to carbon fee. raise the cost. But can we do so Let's stop the pipeline because of without hurting our economy? the risk it poses to natural resources. Certainly — by putting a steadily But let's put a price on carbon to rising fee on oil, gas and coal and reduce demand for tar sands oil. giving the revenue back to the American people as direct payments. Mark Reynolds The price signal of a carbon fee will Coronado, Calif. unleash massive amounts of private The writer is executive director of the investment for clean energy, perhaps Citizens Climate Lobby. allowing the government to get out of

OCTOBER 07, 2011

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 revenueneutral 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.

OIL PIPELINE

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 7, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 6, 2011

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

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

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 cleanenergy 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. “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.”

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

investment will make federal subsidies look like chump change, and the shift to carbonfree 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. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 4, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 2, 2011

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OCT. 1, 2011

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.

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

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 27, 2011

Fee on carbon is inevitable All the leaders of the provincial parties dance around the terms of a price on carbon because of its political implications. However, a fee on carbon is inevitable since Canada must eventually participate in a global campaign to combat growing greenhouse gas emissions. All parties should consider a carbon fee and dividend approach that puts a predetermined and steadily increasing

price on carbon while returning 100 per cent of the revenue in the form of a dividend cheque to all Canadian households. As Canadians consider how best to spend their “green cheques,” businesses will be encouraged to adapt to alternative and renewable forms of energy. Sheila Murray, Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 20, 2011

Stop Keystone Your editorial questions the moral equivalence between the recent Keystone XL Pipeline protests at the White House and the civil rights movement in the 1960s (Key To Prosperity – Sept. 17). It focuses on the promised prosperity the pipeline supposedly will deliver when it transports tar sand bitumen from Alberta to Texas. Among the protesters arrested at the White House was James Hansen, a Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

top NASA climatologist, who warns that continued tar sands development will tip us into runaway global warming. This will result in millions displaced or killed by rising sea water, extreme weather, viruses and drought. Recently nine Nobel Peace laureates, including the Dalai Lama, have urged U.S. President Barack Obama to stop the pipeline. If this isn’t a call to action to take a moral stand, I don’t know what is.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 20, 2011

SOLYNDRA

Clean-energy sector still producing jobs There’s a been a lot of fallout in the news about the failure of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which was backed with government-‐loan guarantees. Despite this bad news, the clean-‐ energy sector continues to grow and produce jobs at a promising clip. So, how do we stimulate jobs in clean tech without risking taxpayer money? Put a steadily rising fee on carbon-‐ based fuels, and private investors will flood the market with capital to start

and expand businesses in wind, solar and other emerging technologies. This will allow the marketplace to choose the winners and losers. Will energy costs go up because of the fee? Of course, and that’s why revenue from the fee should be returned to all households. It’s a job-‐creation program that also addresses climate change without increasing federal spending. That’s what we call a triple-‐win. Steve Valk, Atlanta

SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 MONITOR EDITORIAL

Make a carbon tax part of reform effort Douglas Holtz-‐Eakin, a conservative Republican, adviser to both presidents Bush and presidential candidate John McCain, believes the world's climate is changing and human activity could be to blame. But that's not what he emphasizes as he tours the country in tandem with environmentalists or the ambassador of Norway, a nation whose capital no longer can count on having enough snow for Nordic skiing. Instead, Holtz-‐Eakin talks primarily about the many other reasons why Congress should include a tax on carbon emissions as a component of a reform of the nation's absurdly complex tax code. Holtz-‐Eakin stopped by the Monitor to make his case last week, and it was convincing. This paper has, for more than two decades, viewed global warming as a profound threat, so we were eager to learn why Holtz-‐Eakin, an economist and former head of the Congressional Budget Office, was willing to stump the country to build support for a carbon tax. He was, he said, doing so in hopes of providing business with the certainty it needs to grow, invest and create jobs. And he was doing it for the sake of national security. The less the United States has to rely on other nations, including nations whose interests are hostile to

our own, for the energy that powers its economy, the more secure it will be. Holtz-‐Eakin is a realist. He knows the current political climate is not conducive to action on climate change -‐ or on anything else, we would add. But as one who has been both on top and in the political trenches, he sees an opportunity to act, and we think he's right. No one, save for tax lawyers, likes the nation's 71,684-‐page tax code, a monstrosity that's evolved under massive pressure from lobbyists. Reforming the tax code is one of the few things that could win bipartisan agreement, even in an election season. So far, no climate change bill has emerged from Congress without being burdened by additions and exclusions that doom it to fail. Tax reform legislation, by comparison, is far harder to swell with campaign paybacks, regional favors and other additives. It is a good vehicle, Holtz-‐ Eakin said, on which a clean, revenue neutral, uncertainty-‐ending tax to combat climate change could ride. We agree. Society can no longer afford to hide the true cost of burning a fossil fuel by passing it on to an often unwitting populace, whether that cost comes in

the form of air pollution, a negative impact on human health, harm to the environment or climate change. A carbon tax is a recognition that those costs are real and should be a component in economic decisions that include whether to invest in a coal-‐ fired power plant or a wind farm. Holtz-‐Eakin believes that to pass, a carbon tax would have to be revenue neutral. The money the tax raises should be offset by reductions in things like payroll tax, income tax and corporate tax rate. If some of the money is diverted to another purpose, even one so worthy as energy

conservation measures, he believes, it will fail. We hope he's wrong, because using some of the money to, say, subsidize the insulation of homes, would reduce carbon emissions even more, but we suspect he's right. The tax would have to be clean with revenue raised offset by revenue returned to taxpayers. A carbon tax would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, replace some environmental regulations with market forces, fuel investment in alternative energy and slow climate change. It should be included in any reform of the tax code.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 17, 2011

Carbon fee could be boon The fee and dividend plan proposed by John Reaves would go a long way toward solving our energy problems. By putting a predictable price on carbon, it encourages investment in clean energy. By promoting clean energy, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Best of all, since 100 percent of the funds collected are returned to the American

people on a per-‐capita basis, the plan puts spending money in the pockets of consumers. As Reaves aptly says, this is a plan that is supported by prominent citizens across the political spectrum. I’d love to see it get some traction in Congress. -‐-‐ Jean Seager, Coronado

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 16, 2011

Oceans face a serious threat, need attention Your note that Sen. Murkowski will co-‐chair a bipartisan Senate Oceans Caucus, with Sen. Begich participating, is a hopeful sign that Washington has noticed the serious threats facing our oceans. Evidence is mounting that warming, acidification from increased amounts of carbon dioxide absorbed by the seas, overfishing and agricultural and industrial pollution are stressing marine ecosystems everywhere, and the harmful effects are occurring faster than anticipated. Recently it was announced that rising ocean temperature is causing proliferation of Vibrio bacteria, which causes food poisoning, gastroenteritis, septicemia and cholera. Acidification

stresses most marine life, including the phytoplankton and zooplankton forming the base of the food chain. The bottom line -‐-‐ we must address these issues, including excess carbon dioxide levels. A fee on carbon from fossil fuels, with 100 percent of the money rebated directly to the public will spur development of alternative energy technologies. Even among those who deny that carbon dioxide is a problem, a majority support investment in alternative energy, so this revenue-‐neutral, market-‐driven approach to addressing the issue should be a no-‐brainer. -- Jim Thrall Anchorage

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

The jobs plan the president missed By John Reaves

President Barack Obama’s jobs plan offers a costly cushion with little hope for lasting change. Extending payroll tax cuts exacerbates underfunded Social Security. Carrying certain state jobs is not sustainable, and extending unemployment benefits likely postpones the inevitable. Limited investing in infrastructure and clean tech may create some new jobs in desirable sectors, but not enough. Regardless, the total cost is nearly $450 billion and Congress is in no mood to approve new spending. There is a plan, however, that requires no government investment and will create countless jobs while restructuring our economy in several beneficial ways. The plan the president missed would boost jobs across all sectors, nudge everyone to conserve and use energy more efficiently, and trigger a massive investment of private capital into new businesses that see opportunities. I am talking about a revenue-neutral carbon fee combined with a full dividend, or rebate, that is recycled to all households. Here is the plan: A steadily increasing carbon fee beginning at $15 per ton per

year would be assessed by the IRS at the source – the wellhead (e.g., oil), mine (e.g., coal) and port of entry – and placed in a dedicated trust fund. The cost would trickle down and affect choices consumers make. More importantly, it would send a strong, predictable price signal to the market and create vast opportunities for those who make cleaner products and conserve use of fossil fuels. Venture capital would flood into the market without government direction. It is hard to imagine any sector of our economy that would not find new opportunities and create new jobs. Moreover, investments in clean tech would lead to breakthroughs that further help us solve a handful of serious, intertwined issues (national security; economy; climate change; health; environmental degradation caused by securing and burning fossil fuels). To protect our imports and exports under the plan, if another country lacked a comparable carbon fee, the Department of Commerce would place a tariff for the difference on the import. That would create a “reverse domino” affect, encouraging other countries to collect the fee themselves, which would propel

them to cleaner energy. If an American business were to export a product to a country without an equivalent carbon fee, we would pay such business the difference in fees from the trust fund to stay competitive. We could find the world follows our clean lead. Here is one of the best parts of the plan: All of the money would be returned equally to all households as a dividend (one share for each adult (up to two) and one-half share for children (up to two) per household). About 60 percent to 70 percent of households would receive dividends that exceed or equal the fees paid. Thus, the plan is progressive. While there have been variations on the theme, such as a Republican proposed reduction of payroll taxes, payments to a broader range of affected people would be more fair and immensely popular. Payments could be made by monthly check, debited to bank accounts, payroll tax offset or credit to tax returns. We all agree on the benefit of switching to cleaner energy, whether to reduce greenhouse gases, breathe cleaner air, reduce premature deaths and asthma, reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase national security, avoid higherrisk oil and gas explorations, avoid grinding vast landscapes for highly Â

polluting tar sand oil, or to hedge against volatile oil prices as we venture past world peak oil production. We must also remain competitive with China, which is investing billions more than we are in the future of renewables. No doubt, the winner of the clean energy revolution will enjoy world prominence and power. What may seem remarkable to some is that there is bipartisan support for feeand-dividend because it would not create fiscal drag, money would stay out of government coffers, and government would not pick winners, as touted by President Ronald Reaganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s secretary of state, George Shultz. The marketplace would decide the winners. Economists and businesses like the plan because it would provide a predictable rise in fees on which investment decisions can be based. Further, research has shown that a dollar invested in clean tech grows twice as many jobs as oil and gas. The benefits of moving away from fossil fuels are manifold. When people appreciate the scale of positive change that would result from fee-and-dividend, they will finally have real reason for hope. Reaves is an environmental lawyer and board member of the San Diegobased Citizens Climate Lobby.

JOBS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 15, 2011

Fee on carbon will be game-changer Last week, President Barack Obama unveiled his proposal to create new jobs. I share the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board's concern that the president's powers are very limited. There is an excellent way to create new jobs without government spending, one that will also move America toward energy independence. A revenue-‐neutral fee on carbon-‐ based fuels will stimulate massive domestic investment in clean energy. A recent Brookings Institution report found that clean-‐tech jobs have grown at twice the rate of other jobs since 2004; they pay almost 20% more than the national average, and they are founded on manufacturing and exports. No other sector in our economy offers more potential for new employment. Major corporations and investment firms are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash today. If carbon fees shift only 10% of that money to clean

energy, we'll get a $100 billion injection into wind, solar and other renewables. All without government spending. We can't afford to lose more ground to China, which already controls 60% of solar panel manufacturing. A price on carbon will be a game-‐changer. What to do with the carbon fees? Return all of it to American families on an equal basis. It's fair, because the biggest emitters pay the most. Most American households actually will come out ahead. It's time for Congress to enact a revenue-‐neutral fee on carbon, not just to fight climate change but to provide Americans with the good, wealth-‐creating jobs we desperately need. Hans Noeldner Oregon

Opponents of the proposed pipeline to take tarsands oil to the U.S. from Canada protest in front of the White House. (Aug. 20, 2011)

Civil disobedience goes green By Stephen Scharper “I normally respect the law . . . but I needed to get the message out. By getting arrested, that happened.” So commented Patricia Warwick, 68, who ventured down to the White House last month to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the U.S., a vast arterial skein that will pump the oil harvest of the Alberta tarsands across six U.S. states to refineries in Texas. She wound up in an non-air-conditioned paddy wagon. Warwick joined more than 1,250 Americans and Canadians, ranging from students and grandmothers to celebrities such as Darryl Hannah and Margot Kidder, and eminent scholars, such as James Hansen

of NASA, Bill McKibben of Middlebury College and No Logo author Naomi Klein, who were led away from the White House gates in handcuffs over a two-week demonstration. Their action represents one of the largest environmental acts of civil disobedience of the new millennium. Those arrested were supported in spirit by nine Nobel Peace Prize recipients, including the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, the Nobel laureates urge him to reject the proposed pipeline, saying his decision offers “a critical moment” to make good on his pledge to create a clean energy economy. Another Nobel winner, former U.S. vicepresident Al Gore, also signalled his support for the protestors.

“This pipeline would be an enormous mistake,” Gore tweeted to more than two million followers. “The answer to our climate, energy and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels — instead, we must continue to press for much more rapid development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and cuts in the pollution that causes global warming.” The Obama administration has said it will decide by the end of the year whether to permit the pipeline. In Canada, many are also urging Obama to sever the tarsands supply line. More than 450 have committed to attend a protest scheduled for Parliament Hill on Sept. 26 (ottawaaction.ca), which will also involve acts of civil disobedience and action bringing together students, labour unions, aboriginal groups, physicians and social justice organizations from across Canada. While there is a tendency to label such protestors as anarchists, professional activists or social deviants, marginal to the social and economic mainstream, such a characterization is inaccurate. These protestors are not members of a malcontented rabble, but rather represent an engaged and vital part of our democracies, as research on social movements suggests. Social theorist Charles Tilly, for example, one of the world’s foremost scholars of social movements, spoke of such protests as forming “repertoires of contention.” He traced their beginning to Great Britain in the early 1800s, as the economic and political upheaval of the Industrial Revolution was gathering steam. Unlike the 1789 mob that stormed the Bastille, these social movements, according to Tilly, are more strategic campaigns than mob-rule, and are a direct result of democratization. In other words, they are the logical result of a democracy, as people

deepen a sense of their rights and strategically pressure governments to protect and foster those rights. The pipeline protestors thus represent not a problem for, but a product of, our democratic political system, and as such have to be taken seriously and treated respectfully. As British historian E.P. Thompson pointed out, such social movements represent a “moral economy,” whereby ethical behaviour is articulated by a broader set of social values than simply just following the law. American abolitionist Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay, On Civil Disobedience, represented a moral lighthouse for Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom espoused civil disobedience when confronted with unjust laws. These protestors are heirs to this tradition. Significantly, at the Nuremburg trials following World War II, Nazi officials were hanged for not committing civil disobedience. Their oft-repeated defence that they were simply “following orders” was not enough to save them from the gallows. Their defence was inadequate for the new “moral economy” of a postHolocaust world. These protesters are pointing us to a new “moral economy” concerning the Earth itself. Their actions suggest our present economy, based on ecologically rapacious oil and gas extraction, is ultimately ecologically unsustainable and ethically unacceptable. In future years, when “geocide” is deemed a crime, these protestors may well be remembered not as criminals, but as champions of a life-filled world. Stephen Bede Scharper teaches environmental studies at the University of Toronto.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, SEPT. 11, 2011

Re: The pros and cons of the Keystone XL pipeline ("America's oil boom poses threat to our green future," Insight, Sept. 4) and "Clouds over U.S. solar" (Editorial, Sept. 5).

These words are attributed to Albert Einstein: "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." NASA's James Hansen and other climate scientists have concluded that to maintain a livable world for today's children and future generations, fossil fuel use must be phased down rapidly and unconventional fossil fuels such as Canada's tar sands must be left in the ground. To achieve these reductions, Hansen favors a market-‐ based carbon fee and dividend program. Placing a steadily rising fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels and

rebating all revenue to Americans in monthly "green checks" would drive investment to clean energy and energy efficiency, creating several times the number of jobs as the same level of investment in fossil fuel industries. Consumers could afford higher fossil energy costs during the transition, and technical improvements and scale-‐up would enable U.S. clean energy manufacturers to pull ahead of world competition. This is the kind of new thinking we urgently need. Dave Massen, San Francisco

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Sept. 9, 2011

Carbon dioxide traps gas like so many blankets Editor, Times-‐Dispatch: I would like to clear up a few misconceptions presented by Tom Harris and Martin Mangino in their responses to your recent editorial "The Mann Act." The hockey stick-‐ shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been duplicated by many international scientists using different types of data (tree rings, ice cores, corals, ocean and lake sediments) and different methodologies. To question Mann's research is to question dozens of studies by other well-‐respected scientists. Scientists understand that humans are overloading Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide, a heat-‐trapping gas that builds up like so many blankets, raising the planet's temperature. These conclusions are the result of thousands of published studies. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, formed by Abraham Lincoln to advise Congress, states that certain scientific theories achieve the status of settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of

this warming is very likely due to human activities. All major science academies hold a similar position. Contrary to Harris' claim, these organizations do in fact ask their members for input because these position statements represent tens of thousands of members' reputations. Others agree. Military intelligence experts warn that climate crises could topple governments, embolden terrorists and destabilize regions. Health officials say climate change could be the biggest global threat of the 21st century. The property/casualty insurance industry lists climate change as its greatest risk. For our health, our national security and our economic competitiveness, we need to curb our fossil fuel addiction. Otherwise, we'll wind up clients of the Chinese, paying top dollar for renewable technologies that we should have invented ourselves. Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Studies/Meteorologist, Suffolk County Community College. Selden, NY. \

Friday, Sept. 9, 2011

Choosing opportunity over denial By David Folland Despite ever mounting evidence to the contrary, many of our citizens and politicians continue to deny the science of climate change. Almost 98 percent of the climate scientists of the world agree that the earth is warming and human-produced greenhouse gasses are the major cause. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to the increase in greenhouse gases. Unfortunately denial of science by politicians can be dangerous, even deadly. In 2000 South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that the HIV virus caused AIDS. His administration banned the use of retroviral drugs in public state hospitals. Sadly an estimated 330,000 people died from AIDS because of his policy of denial. How many people are going to be injured or die before our politicians respond emphatically to the science documenting climate change? Climate scientists have been saying that a warming planet will cause hurricanes to be more severe and hold more water. Indeed, Hurricane Irene was so destructive primarily because of the immense amount of water she dumped, not the storm surge or the high winds. Fortunately some politicians are showing the courage to take a positive stand on the environment. Jon Huntsman has distinguished himself from the other Republican candidates by saying "science should be driving our discussions on climate change." Many people and organizations are moving forward and reducing their use of fossil fuels. The LDS Church has been a

leader in construction of environmentally friendly buildings. The Church History Library and many new LDS chapels carry the prestigious LEED Silver designation. The LDS Conference Center has a living roof. Salt Lake City has developed mass transit, improved energy efficiency and developed renewable energy sources. Indeed, the list of energy-saving actions by businesses, local governments, faith groups and individuals is long. All of these developments, however, are only a trickle in what needs to become a river of change if we are to have any hope of reducing global warming. One important initiative that would reduce fossil fuel use is for the federal government to place a fee on carbon at the source of coal, oil and natural gas. Pricing carbon was recommended in a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "America's Climate Choices." The fee would be increased yearly on a predictable basis. Revenue from the carbon fee would be returned to the American people as a dividend to offset the increased cost of fossil fuels. Citizens would be more motivated to use less fossil fuel. The clear and predictable price on carbon would also stimulate tremendous development in the clean economy, a sector that has far greater potential than one based on fossil fuels. The Brookings Institute recently reported that this clean economy sector has many advantages. Among these advantages are 20 percent higher wages, more jobs for those with just a high school diploma and more exports. Brookings reports that at this time China, Germany, Great Britain and Japan

are leading the United States in developing the green economy. Will the U.S. enjoy the fruits of new, clean technology as these other countries have? Or, will our economy continue to decline as we cling to last century's technology? After Brigham Young had settled in the Salt Lake Valley he quipped, "we went West willingly â&#x20AC;&#x201D; because we had to." It would be

in our and future generations' best interest to support laws that motivate us to decrease fossil fuel use willingly, rather than waiting until we have to. David Folland, MD, is a retired pediatrician and volunteer with the Salt Lake City chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011

The green economy David Brooks’ column “Where the jobs aren’t” (Opinion, Sept. 8), dismissing the job potential of the green economy, ignores a Brookings Institution study that found the clean-tech sector to be one of the most promising areas for job growth. Not only was this sector producing jobs at twice the pace of the overall economy over the past seven years, those jobs pay 20 percent more than the national average.

Brooks is right that the government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in clean energy. Instead, the marketplace should determine which technologies emerge on top. We can do that by placing a steadily rising fee on carbonbased fuels. Once there’s a clear price signal on carbon, private investors will flock to clean energy. --Marshall Saunders, Coronado

“This article originally appeared in the Sept 2011 issue of Monday Developments Magazine, www.mondaydevelopments.org, published by InterAction, the alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who focus on disaster relief and sustainable development around the world.”

What About Democracy and Governance Here at Home? Sam Daley-Harris

When most people read a Monday Developments article about “democracy and governance” they are more likely to think about institution building in the global South, the Arab Spring, or Iraqi voters leaving polling places with ink-stained fingers.

But what about democracy and civic engagement here at home? How are we doing on that front and why do the answers to those questions matter so much?

Think about an issue that your institution has taken on. Perhaps it’s funding for child health or basic education, or agriculture. Can you imagine dozens of members of Congress calling to get your input on those issues? Can you imagine dozens of editorial writers calling to get your thoughts on an editorial they are writing about why humanitarian foreign assistance programs are so vital? Can you imagine this happening?

Of course you can’t. But whether you can imagine it or not, I say that it is not an impossible dream because I’ve seen some of these things. My basic proposition is this: Just as there are people in the world who are hungry for food and desperate to get an education for themselves or their children, Americans are hungry to have more meaning in their lives—to live lives that truly matter. I’d also venture to say that all Americans want this, but only a small number are awake to this desire. The good news is that many of those who know they want to make a difference in the world are your own donors. They truly would like to light up their members of Congress and inspire their local media on the issues that your organization cares about.

But, and here’s the rub, citizens are thwarted by two major impediments: 1) feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy about making a difference as an advocate and 2) an inability to find a structure of support that will help them through their despair and truly empower them to make a difference; a structure of support that can coach them through transformations like these: from “I don’t make a difference” to “I do make a difference” from “I can’t fight city hall” to “I am city hall”.

I know this still sounds far-fetched so let me get to where you come in. If your organization has 300 US-based staff, or 100 or even 25, could you see designating just one of those staff to the task of identifying and empowering those within your donor base who want to go deep with their democracy and make an even bigger difference with their money and their voice? You must understand, however, I am not talking about a staff member who can help a cadre of stakeholders know the name of their member of Congress, how a bill becomes law, or what e-mail message to send to Congress. It’s a much deeper lesson plan than that. I am talking about an inquiry that is more closely related to human development seminars or the most profound staff retreat you’ve ever experienced. I am talking about volunteers having an interaction with your organization that will allow them to get in touch with their life’s purpose and a personal commitment to moving toward it.

Here are some of the components of the structure of support that gives it its depth. This structure for grassroots engagement includes a commitment to: •

Breakthroughs: For a citizen to go from not knowing the name of their member of Congress to having a deep, trusting relationship with them requires a series of breakthroughs—it requires moving out of your comfort zone. That is essentially the definition of a breakthrough, seeing something that seems difficult or impossible, having some discomfort in taking it on, and then, with coaching and support, going through that comfort zone to experience the joy and accomplishment on the other side. These breakthroughs can happen with a

member of Congress, with an editorial writer, with other leaders in the community, and with oneself. •

Engaging others: Engaging other community members in being empowered volunteers is part of the structure of support. If I invite a friend to a meeting there is always the fear that they will say no or that they will come and see this as a useless activity. When volunteers become senior to that fear, when the commitment to the purpose and vision is greater than the fear of rejection, then big things can happen.

•

Building relationships: When an op-ed is selected for publication it has less to do with the quality of the op-ed and more to do with the relationship one has developed with the op-ed editor. Of course timing and quality are important, but I would rather have 10 people who have great, trusted relationships with op-ed editors pitch a good op-ed rather than send a great op-ed to 10 editors with whom there is no relationship. So the commitment is not so much to having an editorial writer or member of Congress say yes to every request, but to building a deep, trusting relationship. Hearing “no” from a member of Congress early on should be seen as just one step along the path to building a great relationship over time.

•

Being vulnerable: Showing a moving video or reading convincingly an excerpt from an emotional article to a member of Congress is more important than just sharing information. The goal is to tap into their humanity and create a deeply memorable moment. But people shy away from being vulnerable, especially with those in positions of power. However, a willingness to be vulnerable is essential to having breakthroughs, engaging others, building powerful relationships, and, ultimately, success.

Let me share a few specifics about this structure of support: •

You must have someone on the road speaking powerfully to groups in order to identify volunteers who want to take on this level of commitment and personal growth.

•

The volunteer groups would have at least two meetings a month. One would be a national conference call committed to inspiration and empowerment with guest speakers, a designated action for the month, an accompanying action sheet, and an opportunity to practice being articulate. The other session is focused on planning meetings with members of Congress, calls to editorial writers, and outreach meetings to expand the local group.

•

The grassroots advocates would receive packets to take to editorial writers and other written materials—both informational and inspirational.

Of course this is just a glimpse of what is required for having breakthroughs with Congress and the media. I began using these strategies in the early 1980s. After the volunteers generated 90 editorials in 1986 in a successful campaign to triple the Child Survival Fund from $25 million to $75 million, UNICEF Executive Director Jim Grant sent a hand-written note saying: “I thank you in my mind weekly, if not more often, for what you and your colleagues are accomplishing—but I thought I should do it at least once this year in writing.” So I ask again: What if one percent of your members were seriously engaged in making the case for international development to their members of Congress, the media and thought leaders in their communities? What if they went far beyond mouse-click advocacy and committed themselves to creating champions in Congress and the local media for the end of poverty and your institution created a profound structure of support to help make that happen? What could result from such actions? Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out? Sam Daley-Harris is founder of RESULTS and of the Microcredit Summit Campaign and will launch the Center for Citizen Empowerment and Transformation in 2012. samdharris@microcreditsummit.org

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS MAGAZINE www.mondaydevelopments.org by InterAction September, 2011

What About Democracy and Governance Here at Home? By Sam Daley-Harris When most people read a Monday Developments article about “democracy and governance” they are more likely to think about institution building in the global South, the Arab Spring, or Iraqi voters leaving polling places with ink-stained fingers. But what about democracy and civic engagement here at home? How are we doing on that front and why do the answers to those questions matter so much? Think about an issue that your institution has taken on. Perhaps it’s funding for child health or basic education, or agriculture. Can you imagine dozens of members of Congress calling to get your input on those issues? Can you imagine dozens of editorial writers calling to get your thoughts on an editorial they are writing about why humanitarian foreign assistance programs are so vital? Can you imagine this happening? Of course you can’t. But whether you can imagine it or not, I say that it is not an impossible dream because I’ve seen some of these things. My basic proposition is this: Just as there are people in the world who are hungry for food and desperate to get an education for themselves or their children, Americans are hungry to have more meaning in their lives—to live lives that truly matter. I’d also venture to say that all Americans want this, but only a small number are awake to this desire. The good news is that many of those who know they want to make a difference in the world are your own donors. They truly would like to light up their members of Congress and inspire their local media on the issues that your organization cares about. But, and here’s the rub, citizens are thwarted by two major impediments: 1) feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy about making a difference as an advocate and 2) an inability to find a structure of support that will help them through their despair and truly empower them to make a difference; a structure of support that can coach them through transformations like these: from “I don’t make a difference” to “I do make a difference” from “I can’t fight city hall” to “I am city hall”. I know this still sounds far-fetched so let me get to where you come in. If your organization has 300 US-based staff, or 100 or even 25, could you see designating just one of those staff to the task of identifying and empowering those within your donor base who want to go deep with their democracy and make an even bigger difference with their money and their voice? You must understand, however, I am not talking about a staff member who can help a cadre of stakeholders know the name of their member of Congress, how a bill becomes law, or what e-mail message to send to Congress. It’s a much deeper lesson plan than that. I am talking about an inquiry that is more closely related to human development seminars or the most profound staff retreat you’ve ever experienced. I am talking about volunteers having an interaction with your organization that

will allow them to get in touch with their life’s purpose and a personal commitment to moving toward it. Here are some of the components of the structure of support that gives it its depth. This structure for grassroots engagement includes a commitment to: • Breakthroughs: For a citizen to go from not knowing the name of their member of Congress to having a deep, trusting relationship with them requires a series of breakthroughs—it requires moving out of your comfort zone. That is essentially the definition of a breakthrough, seeing something that seems difficult or impossible, having some discomfort in taking it on, and then, with coaching and support, going through that comfort zone to experience the joy and accomplishment on the other side. These breakthroughs can happen with a member of Congress, with an editorial writer, with other leaders in the community, and with oneself. • Engaging others: Engaging other community members in being empowered volunteers is part of the structure of support. If I invite a friend to a meeting there is always the fear that they will say no or that they will come and see this as a useless activity. When volunteers become senior to that fear, when the commitment to the purpose and vision is greater than the fear of rejection, then big things can happen. • Building relationships: When an op-ed is selected for publication it has less to do with the quality of the op-ed and more to do with the relationship one has developed with the op-ed editor. Of course timing and quality are important, but I would rather have 10 people who have great, trusted relationships with op-ed editors pitch a good op-ed rather than send a great op-ed to 10 editors with whom there is no relationship. So the commitment is not so much to having an editorial writer or member of Congress say yes to every request, but to building a deep, trusting relationship. Hearing “no” from a member of Congress early on should be seen as just one step along the path to building a great relationship over time. • Being vulnerable: Showing a moving video or reading convincingly an excerpt from an emotional article to a member of Congress is more important than just sharing information. The goal is to tap into their humanity and create a deeply memorable moment. But people shy away from being vulnerable, especially with those in positions of power. However, a willingness to be vulnerable is essential to having breakthroughs, engaging others, building powerful relationships, and, ultimately, success. Let me share a few specifics about this structure of support: • You must have someone on the road speaking powerfully to groups in order to identify volunteers who want to take on this level of commitment and personal growth. • The volunteer groups would have at least two meetings a month. One would be a national conference call committed to inspiration and empowerment with guest speakers, a designated action for the month, an accompanying action sheet, and an opportunity to practice being articulate. The other session is focused on planning meetings with members of Congress, calls to editorial writers, and outreach meetings to expand the local group. • The grassroots advocates would receive packets to take to editorial writers and other written materials—both informational and inspirational. Of course this is just a glimpse of what is required for having breakthroughs with Congress and the media. I began using these strategies in the early 1980s. After the volunteers generated 90 editorials in 1986 in a successful campaign to triple the Child Survival Fund from $25 million to $75 million, UNICEF Executive Director Jim Grant sent a hand-written note saying: “I thank you in my mind weekly, if not more often, for what you and your colleagues are accomplishing—but I thought I should do it at least once this year in writing.” So I ask again: What if one percent of your members were seriously engaged in making the case for international development to their members of Congress, the media and thought leaders in their communities? What if they went far beyond mouse-click advocacy and committed themselves to

creating champions in Congress and the local media for the end of poverty and your institution created a profound structure of support to help make that happen? What could result from such actions? Wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it be interesting to find out? Sam Daley-Harris is founder of RESULTS and of the Microcredit Summit Campaign and will launch the Center for Citizen Empowerment and Transformation in 2012. samdharris@microcreditsummit.org This article originally appeared in the Sept 2011 issue of Monday Developments Magazine, www.mondaydevelopments.org, published by InterAction, the alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who focus on disaster relief and sustainable development around the world.

August 31, 2011

A meteorological Pearl Harbor By Mark Reynolds As the Cowardly Lion says in The Wizard of Oz, "Unusual weather we're having, ain't it?" It has been unusual to say the least. Most of the Philadelphia area breathed a sigh of relief this week after Hurricane Irene did not wreak the havoc many forecasters had anticipated. Had Irene hit the densely populated Northeast as a Category 3 hurricane, the destruction would have been biblical. As it stood Wednesday, the storm was "only" responsible for about 40 deaths, estimated damage of at least $7 billion, and power outages affecting millions, as well as turning much of Vermont into a lake. Irene continued a trend of extreme-‐ weather disasters that have devastated much of the country this year: killer tornadoes in the South and Midwest, record flooding along the Mississippi River, wildfires charring millions of acres in Arizona, severe drought throughout Texas, and intolerable heat waves from Minnesota to Massachusetts. There is definitely something in the air, and that something is excessive carbon dioxide, which causes the atmosphere to retain more heat. It

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Hurricane Irene was one of many weather events that should be waking us up to the danger of climate change.

has been piling up since we began burning coal at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and it shifted into high gear with the advent of motor vehicles. Are higher temperatures the sole cause of tornadoes, droughts, and hurricanes? Of course not. These phenomena are as old as the Earth itself. But heating up the planet has "juiced" our weather, making heat waves hotter and longer, and storms more violent and numerous. Juiced is an apt word, because warmer air holds more water, producing heavier rainfall and more floods. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric

Research, is emphatic about the connection between climate change and recent disasters: "Given that global warming is unequivocal," he said, the assumption should be "that all weather events are affected by global warming, rather than the inane statements along the lines of 'of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.' " While few Vermonters anticipated having to pump out their basements this week, the New England flooding bears out a pattern that climate scientists have followed. Last year, Thomas Knutson, a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published a paper titled "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change." Knutson and his team found that "projections ... consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift toward stronger storms." They expected "substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones" and in associated rainfall. The volatility we are seeing is at a time when average global temperatures have risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit. Scientists expect current trends to boost temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees by the end of the century. As environmental activist Bill McKibben put it, "If 1 degree does the damage we're seeing at the moment,

we'd be fools to find out what 4 degrees will look like." Earlier this year, the National Research Council urged policymakers to impose "a comprehensive, nationally uniform price on CO2 emissions ... sufficient to drive major investments in energy efficiency and low-‐carbon technologies." Unfortunately, that advice falls on deaf ears in Congress. Cowed by a fanatical antiscience faction, many members are afraid even to talk about climate change, let alone address it. There is also a fear that putting a price on carbon would hinder our struggling economy. But a carbon fee could actually stimulate job growth in emerging energy technologies. A recent Brookings Institution study shows that sector has grown rapidly over the past seven years, producing jobs that pay 20 percent more than the national average. A price on carbon would move massive amounts of private investment into the sector without public spending. But job creation, important as it is, is not the most important reason to price carbon. The disasters we're seeing should be a "Pearl Harbor moment" on the issue of climate change -‐ a call to action to preserve a livable world. It's time for the nation to declare war on carbon dioxide. Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby.

PAGO POR CARBONO Y DIVIDENDO

Y se puede hacer, con un sistema sencillo

PARA UN FUTURO PRÓSPERO Y SOSTENIBLE

que tiene que pagar el proveedor de

Publicado por Joseph Robertson

dióxido de carbono. Se paga al momento

el agosto 30, 2011

de entrar el carbono en la economía: la

de pago y dividendo. El pago es un precio cualquier tipo de combustible emisor de

mina, el pozo, el puerto de entrada. Cien por ciento de los ingresos del pago se dedican al dividendo, un cheque que recibe cada hogar cada mes, para cubrir cualquier subida de costo debido a la reacción de los proveedores de combustible emisor de dióxido de En la crisis climático-energética, necesitamos soluciones sabias, formidables y asequibles. Es necesario construir cuanto antes una economía verde y sostenible, una economía a base de recursos energéticos limpios y condicionada para sostener una prosperidad no corrosiva. La mejor manera de promover la inyección masiva de capital privado en el proceso de re-invención del mercado energético es usar la política nacional para dar una señal de valor al mercado. Y si es posible, hacerlo sin castigar al consumidor ni gastar dinero federal.

carbono. Cada hogar recibirá un “cheque verde” mensual, devolviendo a los consumidores el poder de decisión sobre la forma y el contenido del mercado energético. El pago y el dividendo, ambos, subirán cada año, para dejar claro a los inversores que el futuro está en la energía limpia. A los pocos años, la energía limpia— eólica (viento), solar, geotérmica e hidroeléctrica, ya competitivos en muchos sitios—será decisivamente más económica y más rentable. El plan devuelve al consumidor el poder de dar forma al portafolios energético de su

mercado y al empresario la libertad de decidir cuál es la mejor manera de competir. El resultado será una economía verde, limpia y sostenible, en la que el valor de la contribución de uno mismo podrá reestablecerse. La relación entre la economía humana y la ecología de los sistemas naturales podrá volver a un equilibrio próspero y sostenible. El capital tendrá que dedicarse a la innovación, porque la innovación, la eficacia, la limpieza de los recursos energéticos tendrán prioridad. Así, el mercado capital, el mercado de las ideas, y el mercado energético, pueden seguir abiertos y racionales, proporcionando beneficios no sólo en el momento, sino para el futuro también.

Outreach event at the ferry dock will address climate change and economy By REBECCA LEISHER South Whidbey Record Reporter Aug 21 2011 With the renewable energy sector, you can have your cake and eat it too. Promoting a green economy will not only slow the devastating effects of climate change, it will also generate a wealth of much-needed jobs, said Tony Billera, Whidbey Island’s chapter team leader for the Citizens Climate Lobby. “This is really about shifting people to buy products that are good for the economy and good for job growth,” Billera said. Billera and others from the Whidbey Island chapter will gather at the Clinton ferry dock at noon Sunday, Aug. 21 for an outreach event aimed at educating the public on climate change and its potential solutions. “We feel like the public is confused and not really aware, not really educated on the issue,” Billera said. “We hope to be able to speak to people and hand out information so they can go discover the accurate information themselves.” Billera is certain that many of the dramatic weather events the world has experienced lately — including the record-setting rainfall in New York City over a recent weekend — are related to the warming of the atmosphere.

“We’re going to see more and more of this around the world,” he said. “We’re well beyond whether this is a question. It’s just a matter of how severe and how fast.” The Citizens Climate Lobby promotes a piece of national legislation called Carbon Fee and Dividend, which would apply fees on carbon-based fuels, then return the revenue to U.S. households. “It sends a signal to the market,” Billera said. “By making fossil fuels effectively a price that represents the cost to society, it will shift people to renewable energy.” Renewable energy jobs are higher paying, more stable and more difficult to outsource, according to the Citizens Climate Lobby. Billera points to a national and regional green jobs assessment by the Brookings Institute released last month, which concluded that “the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession.” The Citizens Climate Lobby is an international organization with 31 chapters across the United States and Canada. Sunday’s outreach event will take place from noon until 4 p.m. at the ferry dock in Clinton. People interested in learning more about Sunday’s outreach event or climate change issues can contact Billera at 206-605-2650 or ccl.whidbey@citizensclimatelobby.org, or visit citizensclimatelobby.org.

Letters to the Editor Published: August 21, 2011

Thanks for highlighting climate issues My hat is off to you for your recent articles recognizing the science around climate change, in particular the stories highlighting the ravaging droughts in Somalia and Texas. In a demonstration of how temperature extremes are affecting our lifestyles right here in Richmond, another feature's focal point was the sad fact that with temperatures above 100 degrees and no shade, playgrounds are too hot for kids. Another terrific news story called attention to the effects of the rising sea levels onTangier Island, which may no longer exist in a century. Hot places are getting hotter. Dry places are getting dryer. Wet places are getting wetter. Your leadership on this critical issue is greatly appreciated, and I thank you for it. With your help and the help of Congress, we can move away from the fossil fuels that contribute to climate change and accelerate renewable energy programs and promote energy efficiency. This plan of action is the right thing to do for our children and will help to achieve economic stability by employing more people with higher-paying green-energy jobs and make us more secure by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil. Janice Straub. Richmond.

Letters August 16, 2011

Weather so far is only the beginning

I recently moved back to Oklahoma after having lived in New Mexico and overseas. I'm thrilled to say I have had no problem finding concerned Oklahomans very knowledgeable about climate change issues and actively working to educate our policy makers. Returning to “Tornado Alley” just in time to experience the worst tornado season in recorded history is a sobering experience. So far, 2011 has been an extraordinary year for other extreme weather-related disasters also — drought and fires in Texas and Arizona, and record flooding along the Mississippi river. Scientists have warned for many years that rising temperatures will tend to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather. The International Energy Agency recently reported that greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, dimming hopes that the increase in average global temperatures can be held to 2 degrees C at the end of the century. Recently, I attended a Citizens Climate Lobby Monthly Conference. Concerned local citizens attending the conference know for example that climate change is not a distant “maybe,” but a “here NOW.” We know we have exceeded the magic number, 350ppm (acceptable level of Co2 in the atmosphere) to an alarming 394ppm. We know this number is climbing rapidly. What we don't know is how long life as we know it can sustain itself at this high level. What we've seen recently is just the beginning and will get worse if we don't reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. One solution is to give the profits of higher energy back to the consumer. A proposal called Fee and Dividend would do just that, keeping the consumer from being hurt from rising energy cost. You can find out about this proposal at www.citizensclimatelobby.org. For information about monthly Citizens Climate Lobby Conferences, contact chobbs405@cox.net. Given the risks we face, I am asking all Oklahomans to urge Congress to act immediately to reduce greenhouse gases by using a Fee and Dividend approach. The most effective means of reducing CO2 quickly is to put a price on carbon that will speed the transition to cleaner forms of energy. BETTY COLE-LEGGIERO Norman

It's our turn to save the world By Sue Loomans Aug. 13, 2011 | Many passionate speeches have been made during the battle over our nation's debt ceiling and deficit. People are paying attention to the Washington talk because we expect a significant impact on our lives and those of future generations. There has been plenty of rhetoric on both sides, but also some very poignant remarks. Here are two examples: "This course is not sustainable. That isn't an opinion; it's a mathematical certainty. If we continue down our current path, we are walking right into the most preventable crisis in our nation's history," said President Barack Obama in his address to the nation on July 25. "The answer is simple. We have to make responsible choices today, so that our children don't have to make painful choices tomorrow," said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan in an address to the Economic Club of Chicago on May 16. I love those comments, and I agree with both of them. I just hope they are repeated with the looming issue that we and every nation will have to deal with in the not too distant future: the climate crisis. How would the current conversation change if we were posting in Times Square the ever increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere instead of the dollars of our national deficit? Would we be alarmed by the skyrocketing total? As we all painfully know, money can be earned and lost quickly, but we're stuck with these greenhouse gases and a warming planet for a very, very long time. Certainly the planet will go on, but it may not support humanity as we know it today. The devastation from recent weather events should serve as a warning. The exceptional drought in Texas and Africa, and tornado outbreaks in the south could be part of a new normal. Bigger stakes means time to act - right? Sure, as long as we don't "hurt the economy." OK, despite the fact that I think our priorities are a little screwed up here, I'm happy to report there is a way to satisfy both problems. A replacement idea to the failed "cap and trade" attempt to control carbon emissions does exist, and is gaining interest from both parties. The idea is called "Carbon Fee and Dividend." It proposes a steadily rising fee to be placed on carbon-based fuels so that coal, oil and gas become more expensive sources of energy than wind, solar and other carbonless methods. Revenue from the fee is given back equally to all households to offset increased energy costs. A dividend would help Wisconsinites cope with higher prices, while allowing us time to find ways to conserve and transition to clean energy. As those improvements are made, more dividends can be saved and invested in our local economies. A predictable rise in fees would also give businesses time to adjust and strategize their role in the new economy, and send a clear price signal to those wanting to invest. Those who are reluctant to enact any law that would increase the size of government should embrace this revenue-neutral approach. And those who cite the need for jobs as our top priority

should love the millions of jobs in clean energy and energy efficiency that would be created by transitioning to a green economy. According to a Brookings Institution report, 77,000 Wisconsinites are now employed in the clean-tech sector, an area growing at twice the rate of the overall economy nationwide. A clear price signal on carbon would immediately shift more investment into these emerging technologies. Sounds like a win-win-win, doesn't it? A win for the environment, for people and for jobs. Ultimately, though, it's the future that has to win this one. My 90-year-old father was part of the "greatest generation" that fought in World War II and saved future generations from the grip of tyranny. Now it's our turn to save the world from the grip of fossil fuels. If we fail, we'll be known as the "last generation" to have it good. Sue Loomans is the leader of the Milwaukee Citizens Climate Lobby Group.

CEDAR RAPIDS

Republicans should address climate change at Ames straw poll by The Gazette Opinion Staff :: UPDATED: 12 August 2011 |

By Bill Ferrel —As a Republican voter in the upcoming Iowa caucuses, I see an extremely important issue that the presidential candidates have not yet addressed: energy and global climate change. At their straw poll (Saturday) in Ames, I want the candidates to answer how they will provide leadership to bring about positive action on this issue. Iowans have felt, and continue to feel, the impact of the historic weather events. As a locally hired public assistance disaster worker with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2008, I had contact with state employees, city and county officials and homeowners. While all of these people appreciated the federal and state money, time and effort toward recovery, they also often wondered why we are seeing these events and how long we can afford to spend the billions of dollars that are required. The average number of federal disaster declarations per year since 1953 is 34. In the last three years, however, there have been 75, 59 and 81 such declarations, with 57 already this year. Iowa had four in 2010. In 2011, we have had two and Gov. Branstad just asked for one more. Considering the trend, these events and their causes must be addressed. There are other problems with our dependence on non-renewable energy. The price of oil continues to fluctuate rapidly. We have seen too many oil spills. We have been drawn into war in the oil-rich parts of the world, including President Obama’s recent venture into Libya. Obama talks about dealing with these problems, but he hasn’t gotten any results. By contrast, former President Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol to begin regulating ozone-depleting gases to protect the global environment from further damage to the ozone layer. As California governor, Reagan was a leader against urban smog. We expect leadership from the next president to create jobs, break our dependence on non-renewable energy, and mitigate devastation before historic weather events happen.

In Iowa, we have been making great strides in addressing the need for renewable energy and moving toward a sustainable energy future. We are a world leader in wind energy production, providing 2,667 jobs with an annual payroll of $70.2 million in that industry, according to the Iowa Wind Energy Association. Landowners receive an estimated $12.67 million annually in land lease payments and thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s been a $1.5 billion increase in the property tax assessed value. Clean, homegrown energy is one answer to climate change and our economic woes. Republican candidates need to address these questions: l What will you do to promote the creation of desperately needed jobs in renewable energy and sustainable practices? l What will you do to address the rapid escalation in the frequency and severity of historic weather events? l How will you protect our national security interests as the price of oil continues to fluctuate as the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs grow? l How will you keep us from another war in the oil-rich part of the world? l Will you bring respect and honor to our country with support for the immediate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions? Republicans need our candidate and the next president to be a world leader on energy and climate change. Bill Ferrel of Coralville is president of Agape Sustainability Advisors. Comments: bill.ferrel@gmail.com

Cool solution for a warming planet To fight climate change, put a price on carbon, but offset it with rebates to consumers By Dana Knighten August 8, 2011 It seems that Baltimore is keeping pace with the rest of the country and the world: It's getting hotter. On Aug. 1, The Sun reported that July was the hottest July — actually the hottest month — ever for Baltimore. One day later, we learned that the city's 30-year average had risen half a degree above the last average. I'm scared. I can handle a record-high temperature so long as I know that it's an exception and that it will go back down. But what is being reported here is a trend — one with no end in sight. These data are consistent with scientists' predictions of global warming. I have a child. I want to bequeath to her a livable planet. I've been following climate trends for decades now, and I no longer doubt that we need to do something major to counteract this trend. We need to put a price on carbon. Authorities in all walks of life are saying so: scientists (the National Academy of Sciences), religious leaders (the Vatican and others), and ultraconservative think tanks (the American Enterprise Institute), among many others. So this month I enlisted in the nonpartisan, nonprofit, all-volunteer Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and agreed to join the fight for effective federal climate legislation. I believe the carbon fee and dividend legislation that CCL plans to ask Congress to take up is the best approach. CCL's proposed legislation puts a fee on carbon as it enters the economy and then gives 100 percent of the money collected to American citizens as rebates. The fee starts at $15 per ton of carbon and rises by $10 a year for the next seven years. The effect of the fee will be to gradually make carbon-containing fuels (coal, oil and gas) and products made using those fuels more expensive, enabling alternative energy resources to compete. Meanwhile, the effect of the monthly rebates to American households would be to shield ordinary citizens from the financial stress that rising fuel prices would otherwise cause. (The scheme is completely spelled out on the CCL website, http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org.)

A fee is needed because the prices of fossil fuels themselves are not sending a "market signal," according to economists. A huge price is paid for fossil fuel use, but only a small fraction of that price is reflected in the cost of the fuel. Society as a whole is paying this price. Included in it are subsidies taken from our taxes, health damage caused by pollution, military expenditures and deaths incurred by our addiction to oil, and the escalating ecological devastation caused by climate change. Putting a fee on carbon would correct this market failure so that the price of fuels would more accurately reflect their costs to society. CCL's experts say the system they propose could level the playing field for clean energy within seven to 10 years. The alternative energy industries are ready for this change and can quickly deploy to replace fossil fuel energy generation. Abundant new technologies are already on the shelf and need only to be scaled up to meet the nation's energy needs. CCL makes available a booklet, "Building a Green Economy," providing details on these points. A carbon fee and dividend system would be an easy sell to citizens, because of the "green checks" they would receive every month. Fossil fuel and other industries could adjust to fluctuating fossil fuel prices, because the increases in the fees would be predictable. The system would be welcome to the military, because climate change is a national security issue — a "threat multiplier." It would be acceptable to Republicans who took the "no new revenues" pledge, because it is revenue neutral. It is transparent, fair, and even-handed, and it would be easy to administer: the IRS could issue the checks. It would not lend itself to gambling and gaming by speculators, as cap and trade systems have. Fee and dividend legislation would be a tremendous job creator. Analyses show that it would add many times more jobs than additional conventional power plants would do, in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of alternative energy systems. It would benefit the environment: alternative energy resources are, for the most part, clean energy. It is supported by precedents: Germany has already shifted to carbon-based taxing and, as a result, has become a world leader in alternative energy technologies. British Columbia has introduced a system of this kind and the citizens strongly favor it. Climate change is a nonpartisan, nondenominational, non-nationalistic issue. We can work together on it—Republicans and Democrats, people of all religious faiths, the United States and other countries. Canada's prime minister has said that if the United States introduces this system, Canada will join in. We need to do this wonderful thing and we need to do it now. Waiting can only make the climate crisis worse, more and more rapidly. Acting now can begin to build a benign new world for our children. Dana Knighten lives in Pylesville. Her email is blueheron@zoominternet.net. Copyright © 2011, The Baltimore Sun

Clean economy can pay off for you By david folland Published: August 6, 2011 01:01AM Updated: August 6, 2011 01:01AM

As we recently celebrated the great heritage of the pioneers who settled Utah, I thought about the harsh environment they faced on arrival. I reflected on the courage, sacrifice and foresight needed to adapt to such an unforgiving wilderness. Like the pioneers, we now face an increasingly harsh and unforgiving environment. Our weather in Utah this past year has been unusual, but it pales in comparison to the rest of the country, where we have seen record heat, floods, fires and tornadoes. Last year was our planet’s hottest on record. While the desert was a harsh environment of the pioneers’ choosing, today’s harsh environment is one of our own making. We made weather events more severe by increasing the rate at which greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere, causing the Earth to warm up. A recent article in Scientific American cited Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Trenberth was unequivocal about the connection between climate change and current disasters: “Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming.” Fortunately, many businesses, communities and individuals are responding to the climate threats and making changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Utah we improved energy efficiency, increased mass transit and developed renewable energy sources, among other things. While these steps are important, they have not been enough to reduce our emissions sufficiently. What’s needed is a steadily increasing fee on carbon that creates the incentive to stop burning fossil fuels. Is there a way to implement this price incentive without inflicting economic hardship in the short term? Most definitely there is. In addition to a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels — coal, oil and gas — we should return the revenue from that fee to all households as direct payments. This “carbon dividend,” as it were, would offset the higher cost of energy associated with the carbon fee, and in many instances that dividend would exceed increased cost. Once a clear price signal is established, the government can step out of the way and let private investment take

over, as billions of dollars pour into clean energy and energy efficiency. The good news is that making the switch to a clean economy will create many opportunities, jobs, and economic advantages. In July the Brookings Institute released a landmark report, “Sizing the Clean Economy,” which held that the clean economy employs some 2.7 million workers, is manufacturing and export intensive, offers more opportunities for better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy, and on average pays higher wages. The report also noted that the “cleantech” sectors of the clean economy grew at almost double the rate of the overall economy between 2003 and 2010. And this happened without the incentive of a price on carbon. Twenty years ago this month a biologist and LDS Church bishop, Michael Alder, wrote an article for the faith’s Ensign magazine called “Earth — A Gift of Gladness” in which he warned of the effects of global warming. He wrote that “at one time there may have been reason to be skeptical about the idea that we are changing the Earth on a global scale. But no longer.” And he urged that steps be taken to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the environment. If we respond to this call of 20 years ago and act with the same foresight and courage as our pioneer forebears, we can create a new and clean economy that preserves a livable world for our posterity. David Folland, a retired Sandy pediatrician, is a volunteer with the Salt Lake City Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.

Action needed to deal with climate change Friday, July 29, 2011 I am a physician and a resident of Northwestern Ontario. Over the past few years I have become increasingly concerned about the damage which climate change will cause our country and the world in the near future. In fact, the predictions which climate scientists have been making for years are already beginning to become reality. We’re seeing it now: the unprecedented flooding in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec this spring, as well as record floods, tornadoes, droughts and wildfires across the U.S. Here’s what Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said about extreme weather disasters: “Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming.” David Phillips, senior climatologist for Environment Canada, recently warned that the extreme weather events we are seeing more and more frequently in Canada are just the early manifestations of climate change, and worse is in store. Experts in climate change are urging immediate action to curb our emissions of carbon into the atmosphere while we can still make a difference, but our elected representatives are either ignoring the warnings or are too afraid of being unpopular with their constituents to speak out. This must stop. But in order to get our leaders to act we need to mobilize public opinion. In particular, we need to pressure our governments to start pricing carbon so we can wean our nation off of fossil fuels. Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada has a revenue-neutral approach to pricing carbon which should be acceptable to all political parties in Canada, but we need to get their attention. Mark Polle, MD Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada Red Lake

Â Â

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

Huntsman's Climate Stand Smarter Than You Think Friday, July 29, 2011

I'll say this for Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman: He's not afraid of getting in hot water with the Tea Party, the extremist wing of the GOP that is vetting potential nominees for the White House. Thursday evening, at a dinner in Washington sponsored by Republicans for Environmental Protection, Huntsman said, ""I'm not ashamed to be a conservationist. I also believe that science should be driving our discussions on climate change." While that might not sound like a radical stand, conventional wisdom these days holds that Republicans, whether seeking the presidency or simply trying to hold their seat in Congress, must distance themselves from any previous expressions of concern about climate or the environment. Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is a case in point. In 2008, he appeared in an ad with then-Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, calling on Congress to adopt legislation to address climate change. That ad, he says, "was a mistake. It was stupid." The former Minnesota governor points out that most of the other candidates in the GOP field previously held similar views and have since backpedaled. Will Huntsman's principled stand on climate change doom his chances? Huntsman may be more clever here than most people think. For starters, his position on climate change sets him apart from the rest of the field. And while all the other candidates are scrambling for a slice of the Tea Party vote, Huntsman can own the moderate vote in the Republican party, people increasingly marginalized within the GOP. Many centrist Republicans are looking for a reason not to bolt from their party, and Huntsman could provide the motivation for them to hang in there and for others to return to the fold. So, here's my advice for the former Utah governor: If you're going to stand alone on the issue of climate change, go ahead and fully embrace it by proposing a solution that both Republicans and Democrats can agree to. Huntsman, who once championed a cap-and-trade system for western states, now says that approach hasn't worked and "our economy's in a different place than it was five

years ago." The implication is that pricing carbon through a trading mechanism will be a drag on our struggling economy. Fine. Skip the trading, but put a direct fee on carbon-based fuels and give the revenue back to the American people. By sending a clear, predictable price signal to investors, billions will flow into clean energy and energy efficiency, ramping up the green tech sector to provide the jobs that America desperately needs now. "The S&P 500 is sitting on $1.18 trillion in cash," said Lily Donge of Calvert Investments. "If there's a price signal on carbon that unleashes even 10 percent of that, that would be more than $100 billion in new investment channeled toward clean energy." And by giving the revenue back to households as direct payments, low- and middle-class Americans will be shielded from the impact of higher energy costs associated with the carbon fee. A majority of Americans would actually receive more from the "carbon dividend" than they would pay for higher costs, adding another stimulus to the economy. By making the pricing mechanism revenue-neutral -- giving all the money back to the people -- Huntsman can stay true to the most highly valued principle of the Republican party: Don't increase the size of government. But what about the "No Carbon Tax Pledge" signed by more than 170 members of Congress? Interestingly, the Americans for Prosperity-sponsored pledge specifically states: "I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." No problem with a revenue-neutral fee. For the environmentally-minded Republicans attending the Teddy Roosevelt dinner in Washington Thursday evening, Huntsman's message provided a moment of encouragement in a time of great disappointment. By embracing the issue of climate change and proposing a revenue-neutral price on carbon, Huntsman can transform the current image of Republicans from a party of obstruction to a party of solutions. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/letters-to-the-editor/2011/jul/28/tdopin01-letters-to-the-editor-ar1201219/

Published: July 28, 2011 Home / news / opinion / mailbag /

Letters to the Editor By Times-Dispatch Staff Looking forward to celebrating clean energy Editor, Times-Dispatch: I share letter-writer William Nelms' concerns for our grandchildren ["Environmentalists have a hidden agenda"]. I, too, value America's freedom and prosperity. My goal is national security and economic stability. The April 2011 climate change report commissioned by Pope Benedict confirms man-made climate change and calls for immediate corrective action. The Pentagon's 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE) report lists climate change among the top 10 trends affecting the mission of the U.S. military. The National Strategic Narrative, written at the command of Admiral Mullen in response to JOE, directly links American security and prosperity to the security and prosperity of people throughout the globe. Climate change creating droughts in Africa directly threatens America. Economists tell us clean energy and energy-efficiency projects create more jobs than dirty energy. Investors say that the market, too, is man-made. We can decide where we want the market to take our economy. My vote: a push towards clean energy and away from dirty energy. Twenty years from now we'll celebrate the brilliant bankers who invested in renewable energy and helped avert the worst of climate change; the wise leaders in Congress who put the push in the market that allowed the bankers to prosper through their investments in sustainable energy; the power companies who expanded their work force, employing thousands upon thousands in new green energy and energy efficiency projects at the point when America thought its economy would never recover. Patti Pickering. Richmond.

Cantor should be commended for his stand Editor, Times-Dispatch: Now that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of big government remains â&#x20AC;&#x201D; for at least the next year and a half â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Jeff Shapiro is apparently finding it much easier to show his closet liberalism, as witnessed by his recent musing, "Cantor, Virginia's Young Gun, Misfires." To the contrary, Rep. Eric Cantor is firing on all cylinders. Cantor's efforts in the past several weeks are to be highly commended. His actions are in the best interest of this once-great nation. Cantor is doing exactly what needs to be done to address the country's fiscal implosion. There can be no compromise or bipartisanship. Democrats seem to be in another universe than that which more than 50 percent of us inhabit. Not since 1964 have Democrats and Republicans had such diametrically opposed philosophies. The mainstream media have excoriated Republicans for pushing spending cuts and refusing to support tax increases to raise the debt limit. But Republicans had a mandate from the voters in November 2010 to advance such policies. It's not clear that voters in November 2008 gave Obama and the Democrats a mandate to increase non-defense discretionary spending by almost 25 percent. Cantor is further constrained by Rep. John Boehner potentially ceding authority to Sen. Mitch McConnell. Instead of embracing the conservative "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan or pushing forward with Paul Ryan's plan, Boehner is going to let McConnell move forward. This is a critical moment in the debt ceiling debate. Any Republican who votes to give Obama more power, allowing him to raise the debt ceiling without guaranteed spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment, is selling out. They are putting politics before principle, elections before doing what's right and protecting their job rather than saving America. Jesse L. Harrup Jr. Colonial Heights. Tax breaks for rich are the problem Editor, Times-Dispatch: I am amused at those letters advocating increases in taxes and taking the House to task for not going along with President Obama's attempt to increase our taxes. I have to wonder if those individuals who want to raise taxes actually pay taxes or if they are in that segment of the population that benefits from the 40 percent of Americans who pay all the taxes. I am tired of hearing about the Republicans protecting the rich. My response is: Has a poor person ever created a job? The tax breaks for the rich that the liberals harp about would not make a dent in the debt Congress has imposed on Americans over the last five years. Don't blame President Bush, Congress passes the budget, and up until the last election, that recently has been controlled by Democrats.

Robert Rhoades. Powhatan. President's behavior isn't showing mature leadership Editor, Times-Dispatch: A great leader shows calm under fire. President Obama's tantrum at a recent press conference proves maturity is not one of his attributes. Slinging mud at the other party, holding closed-door talks and campaigning instead of working toward solutions are proof enough that he must be replaced. Gordon Ashworth. Drakes Branch. the Richmond Times-Dispatch ÂŠ Copyright 2011 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company.

Ogden, Utah

Disasters connected to burning of fossil fuels By David Folland, MD Standard-Examiner Sunday, 07/24/2011

How often have you heard the weather described as, "the worst, the most, the deadliest" in the past few years? As I looked at pictures of the worst flooding in Minot, North Dakota, since records began over 100 years ago, I reflected on how often recently I heard such superlatives. We have seen the worst fire in Arizona's history, the most category 5 and costly hurricanes in a single season (2005), and the deadliest tornado since modern recordkeeping began in 1950 (Joplin, Mo., May, 2011). One has to wonder why this is occurring. Our weather and climate are indeed complex, and it's difficult to ascribe a single event to a single cause. However, over 25 years ago, when climate scientists began reaching consensus that the earth is warming, they predicted that one of the results would be an increase in extreme weather events. What we are seeing is the fulfillment of these predictions. The explanations of the human causes of global warming go beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that virtually every climate scientist in the world now agrees the warming is caused primarily by our polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. A recent article in Scientific American cited Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Trenberth was unequivocal about the connection between climate change and the current disasters: "Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming." The major greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is given off when we burn fossil fuels, like gas, oil, and coal. The carbon dioxide content has risen from the 280 parts per million preindustrial level, to 392 last year, and is rising by 2 parts per million each year. The

amount of temperature rise, the rate of rise, and the layers of the atmosphere affected are all most consistent with human-‐caused global warming. This realization motivated me and two other concerned citizens Utah to join 74 other volunteers of Citizens Climate Lobby in Washington, D.C., at the end of June. We went to Washington to request Congressional action on climate change. We met many in government who understand the climate crisis and want to do something about it. However, we also encountered huge inertia to change. The power of those who wish to continue to use fossil fuels is formidable. Nevertheless we met with over 140 Congressmen/women and/or their staff on Capitol Hill, delivering the message that we need to set a fee on carbon and return the proceeds to the American people. Making the cost of carbon fuels reflect the cost to society is what our own National Academy of Science recently recommended to Congress. We asked our elected officials to recognize the need and move forward with change. What will give them the courage and conviction to make laws that will encourage the use of non-‐polluting sustainable fuels (solar, wind, etc.) and discourage the use of carbon-‐based fuels? Quite simply, they need to hear from the people they represent. You can call, write, email, or attend a town hall meeting. But unless our representatives hear from us, the powerful interests that want to continue our reliance on fossil fuels will prevail. Should those interests prevail, unfortunately, we can expect to see more headlines about "the worst, the most, and the deadliest." Dave Folland, MD, a retired pediatrician, is a volunteer with the Salt Lake City chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby.

Richmond Times Dispatch 07/23/2011

A8 SATURDAY, JULY 23, 2011

uuu

Copy Reduced to %d%% from original to fit letter page

Editorial Page

“We’re having a heat wave, a tropical heat wave, the temperature’s rising, it isn’t surprising, she certainly can can-can.” The song dates to the 1930s, an era of witty sexuality as well as a time long before debates regarding climate change and global warming. Every snow storm, even if it occurs in January and February, summons snide remarks that the accumulations disprove global warming. If that is the case, then tropical heat waves must verify the theory. Commentators cannot have it both ways. We await observations that the high temperatures which have tormented much of the nation in recent weeks result from climate change. Climate is not static but always in flux. The Earth has seen periods of warming and periods of cooling. The Ice Age was not a myth. Global warming is not a myth, either — which does not mean that the climate of the entire globe eventually will resemble the climate of equatorial Africa. Significant consequences can flow from seemingly modest changes in temperature and precipitation, however. The trend may have gone beyond the point that it can be reversed. It also may be possible that relatively modest endeavors can help humanity adjust to changes and even forestall the worst-case scenarios. This can be done without jettisoning the economic system. Indeed, market economies may be more able to cope than the alternatives. The Pentagon takes climate change seriously. Sensible responses likely will have to come from the right. Richard Nixon went to China. Will conservatives be credited with climate breakthroughs?

RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH

TimesDispatch.com Search: opinion

Letters to the Editor

Climate

Tropical heat wave

Page : A08

Republicans continue to curry favor with fat cats EDITOR, TIMES-DISPATCH:

Rep. Eric Cantor, like so many of his Republican cohorts, curries favor with fat cats and constituents by stubbornly opposing any attempt to increase revenues to reduce the federal deficit. By contrast, states, townships and municipalities must meet their increasing needs by both increasing taxes and occasionally issuing municipal bonds. Unlike the federal government, they must have a balanced budget. Cantor and other Republicans have advocated a flat tax of 25 percent as one step in an effort to simplify the Tax Code. If one is on a fixed income this would result in an increase in taxes while top-bracket folks would pay less). Financial gurus have noted for years the obscene rates of compensation paid to top American executives as compared to their contemporaries in other countries. The gap between the earnings of these moguls as contrasted with their Last call employees has widened. Most of us have difficulty mustering sympathy for them when mention is made of increasing taxes Obrycki’s long has attracted Baltimoreans and visitors to its on the rich. Yet Republicans temple on East Pratt. The institution served crab. Indeed, it persist in opposing any increase SCENIC VIRGINIA in revenues. opened during the season when the crustaceans flourished and "Snow and Ice," by Gary Andrashko The other issue, reducing closed during the lean months. spending, should start with Gourmands ordered crab cakes, crab imperial and blue crabs measures that reduce pay to — best eaten, of course, with sleeves rolled up. During its prime, members of Congress by 10 Obrycki’s was a place to jaw about the Colts. C O R R E S P O N D E N T O F T H E D AY percent, changing the rules In November, the beloved joint will serve its last. The owners regarding their retirement sysexplain that seasonal restaurants are growing harder to maintain. tem and eliminating their pay If Congress can’t find a credit cards are in good standThey also say they cannot count on the quantity and quality of entirely when Congress is not in ing. The same approach is solution, it’s the problem necessary for our country, and session. Were these changes the crabs. The in-town location will close, but Obrycki’s will implemented, they might have a little compromise is needed operate outposts in the Baltimore and Cleveland airports. EDITOR, TIMES-DISPATCH: some creditability with the I am disgusted by the ongo- from everyone to make it Obrycki’s belongs to Baltimore’s lore. Soon it will join HaussnAmerican people. ing political fighting in Wash- possible. er’s in the sacred mists of memory. Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit We will have to decrease WILLIAM M. YOUNG. ington over the debt-limit and other cities seem destined to break hearts. RICHMOND. government spending across crisis. It’s unbelievable that our congressmen and -wom- the board, increase taxes for those who can afford it, and en find it so difficult to see Week’s end Raising taxes impacts past their own personal agen- increase the debt ceiling. Only a solution that tackles the homes and business das, or the agendas of big problem from these three contributors, to make a deciEDITOR, TIMES-DISPATCH: angles will be accepted by sion best suited to the needs My friend and former deleeveryday Americans. ♦ This week the Richmond City Council endorsed a redistrictof our country. Clearly we gate, Robert E. Washington, I’m not in a high-earner tax ing plan that makes only modest changes to the electoral map. need a compromise that can recently added his expertise in bracket, but I’m willing to secure the future of America. The adjustments reflect population shifts, but the wards will his letter, “Is Eric Cantor acting pony up some extra taxes. I Do they not see that their remain essentially the same. The alternations do not go nearly as foolishly?” Few should disagree regularly take advantage of internal bickering and riskfar as suggestions made by a mayoral panel that studied the with him that “Both spending taking are putting America at government programs, and I process. The city’s public housing estates, for instance, will not be cuts and increased revenues are would hate to see them all risk? If our representatives needed if a reasonable, responspread among four districts, as the panel recommended, but will become victims of poor fiaren’t actively and publicly sible and workable solution is to nancial planning. It’s time for stay in three. Public comment will occur in August. demanding a tempered and be found.” ♦ Kimberly Gray, who represents the 2nd District on the School politicians to look beyond reasonable compromise to The question is: How to detheir pocketbooks, special this pending catastrophe, Board, might not consider the changes modest. The new map crease spending and increase interest groups and the next then they are not only failing moves her out of her constituency. Next month’s hearings will revenue? There have been four to find a solution to this prob- election and represent Ameroffer her supporters an opportunity to express themselves. successful responses to a deicans demanding a comprolem — they are the problem. ♦ Today the Museum of FineCommunications Arts officially unveils a Copyright © Virginia 2011 Media General Holdings, LLC. A Media General company. $$edition July 23, 2011 5:09 pm Powered by TECNAVIA pression (1921) or recessionary mise/ and an amicable solution When I run short on monmassive sculpture of Mocha Dick, the real-life whale that inspired economy; Coolidge, Kennedy, ey, I do three things: lower my to this revolting infighting. the novel “Moby-Dick.” Although Tristin Lowe’s work would LEE ADCOCK. Reagan and Bush. Each lowered expenses, increase my inMIDLOTHIAN. taxes, and a robust economy intimidate Queequeg, it likely will please museum-goers of all come, and make sure my

Crabs

Wrap-up

CEDAR RAPIDS

The Gazette Government Taxes Carbon, Money Goes to Households by Todd Dorman :: UPDATED: 22 July 2011 | 2:02 pm

Some folks from the Citizens Climate Lobby stopped in this morning to tell our editorial board about two new chapters of the group being formed in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. The CCL is building a network of local groups with hopes that those local voices will have a better chance of catching the attention of individual members of Congress. The group believes climate change is happening, that the scientific consensus points to man-made causes and that federal action is needed to address it. Executive Director Mark Reynolds outlined what CCL thinks that action should look like. I’m no expert on this stuff. I’m just your typical carbon-burner. But I thought it was an interesting idea. So I’m throwing it out there. Basically, the federal government would place a $15 per-ton tax on CO2 emissions, charged at the mine, rig or other facility where the commodities enter the economy. That tax would go up $10 per-ton each year. Here’s the intriguing part. Every dime raised by the tax would be rebated to Americans to offset any increases in energy costs caused by the tax. Reynolds claims that 70 percent of households would see bigger dividend checks than rate increases. The government would pretty much wipe out all other energy subsidies. And goods coming from overseas, from countries without a carbon tax, would be assessed a fee to level out any cost advantage. Reynolds contends the rising carbon tax would send a clear signal to budding entrepreneurs that their alternative energy ventures will eventually be competitive and profitable alongside traditional energy sources. Investors would like that certainty. The flip side, of course, is that coal, and to a lesser extent oil, would be big losers under this scenario. This sounds a lot less complex than cap and trade, which is pretty much dead and buried. Maybe, in this political climate, this idea is also dead. My first thought about stuff like this is that it can’t possibly be this simple.

But it’s worth chewing over. Here’s the CCL’s proposed legislation, in more detail:

Legislative proposal: Carbon Fee and Dividend Proposed Findings: 1. Causation: Whereas the weight of scientific evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and other sources are causing rising global temperatures, 2. Mitigation (Return to 350 ppm or Below): Whereas the weight of scientific evidence also indicates that a return from the current concentration of more than 387 parts per million (“ppm”) of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) in the atmosphere to 350 ppm CO2 or less is necessary to slow or stop the rise in global temperatures, 3. Endangerment: Whereas further increases in global temperatures pose imminent and substantial dangers to human health, the natural environment, the economy and national security and an unacceptable risk of catastrophic impacts to human civilization, 4. Co-Benefits: Whereas the measures proposed in this legislation will benefit the economy, human health, the environment and national security, even without consideration of global temperatures, as a result of advances in clean-energy technology, reductions in non-greenhouse-gas pollutants, reducing the outflow of dollars to oil-producing countries and improvements in the energy security of the United States, 5. Benefits of Carbon Fees: Whereas phased-in carbon fees on fossil fuels (1) are the most efficient, transparent and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a clean-energy economy, (2) will stimulate investment in clean-energy technologies by insuring that fossil fuels lose their competitive price advantage over clean energy within a 10-year time frame, and (3) give all businesses powerful incentives to increase their energy-efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints in order to remain competitive, 6. Equal Monthly Per-Person Dividends: Whereas equal monthly dividends (or “rebates”) from carbon fees paid to each American household can help insure that families and individuals can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy economy and the dividends will stimulate the economy, Therefore the following legislation is hereby enacted: 1. Collection of Carbon Fees/Carbon Fee Trust Fund: Upon enactment, impose a carbon fee on all fossil fuels at the point where they first enter the economy. The fee shall be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. The fee on that date shall be $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions and result in equal charges for each ton of CO2 equivalent emissions potential in each type of fuel. The Department of Energy shall propose and promulgate regulations setting forth CO2 equivalent fees for other greenhouse gases including methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) emitted as a byproduct, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. The Internal Revenue Service shall also collect the fees imposed upon the other greenhouse gasses. All fees are to be placed in the Carbon Fees Trust Fund and be rebated 100% to American households as outlined below. 2. Ensuring that Clean Energy Become Competitive Within a Ten year Time

Frame:The yearly increase in carbon fees including other greenhouse gasses, shall be at least $10 per ton of CO2 equivalent each year to ensure that fossil fuel energy loses its competitive price advantage with respect to the clean energy technologies we have today, including, at a minimum, wind, geothermal and industrial solar energy, within 10 years of the date of enactment. Annually the Department of Energy shall determine whether an increase larger than $10 per ton per year is needed to achieve program goals. Yearly price increases of at least $10 per year shall continue until total U.S. CO2-equivalent emissions have been reduced to 10% of U.S. CO2equivalent emissions in 1990. 3. Equal Per-Person Monthly Dividends Payments: Equal monthly per-person dividend payments shall be made to all American Households (1/2 per child under 18 years old, with a limit of 2 children per family) each month beginning on August 28, 2011. The total value of all monthly dividend payments shall represent 100% of the total Carbon Fees collected per month. 4. Border Adjustments: In order to ensure that U.S.-made goods can remain competitive at home and abroad and to provide an additional incentive for international adoptions of carbon fees, Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Tariffs shall be charged for goods entering the U.S. from countries without comparable Carbon Fees/Carbon Pricing. Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Rebates shall be used to reduce the price of exports to such countries and to ensure that U.S. goods can remain competitive in those countries. The Department of Commerce will determine rebate amounts and exemptions if any. 5. Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Subsidies: All existing subsidies of fossil fuels, including tax credits, shall be phased out over the 5 years following enactment. 6. Moratorium on New or Expanded Coal-Fired Power Plants: Beginning on the date of enactment, there shall be no new coal-fired power plants permitted, constructed, or operated. There shall also be no expansions in capacity of any existing coal power plants permitted, constructed, or operated. And any previously permitted coal-fired power plants that have not yet been constructed or put into operation prior to the date of enactment shall not be put into operation and shall not be further constructed. 7. Seeking Treaties: The President in consultation with the United States Department of State shall seek treaties with other countries that encourage adoption of programs similar to the ones provided for in this Act to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in other countries. Legislation introduced in the 111th Congress by Rep. Larson (D-CT), H.R. 1337 Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Energy Security Trust Fund Act, and by Rep. Inglis (R-SC), H.R. 2380 Raise Wages Cut Carbon Act, reflects an approach very similar to this. Â

Mark Hohmeister: Local action, global issue

Activists express some optimism on climate change MARK HOHMEISTER • ASSOCIATE EDITOR • PUBLISHED: JULY 09. 2011 2:00AM

If you're one of those who worry about climate change and the impact it will have on our future, you can get a bit depressed. In Washington, we have politicians who see any nod toward easing climate change as an admission of socialist tendencies. In April, the House rejected efforts to even acknowledge climate change as a risk caused by human activities. Then in June, the House amended a spending bill to prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from making regulations related to climate change. At least the so-called deniers no longer try to say that the Earth isn't warming. Now they expend their energies pointing to sunspots, solar winds, continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, unspecified natural cycles — anything but the use of carbon-based energy — as the cause. Of course, these same 21st-century Americans also reject science on everything from autism (nearly half are leery of vaccines' causing autism, even after research showing a link was discredited) to evolution. Alas. So it was nice to get a little burst of optimism this week when three members of the local Citizens Climate Lobby dropped by to talk about a recent trip to Washington. Chris Byrd, a state worker; Len Adams, a retiree who worked in economic development; and Carlos Boueres, a Renaissance man who has had careers in physics, environmental protection and architecture, joined two other local activists in Washington, where they and about 80 others from the national climate lobby had an estimated 140 meetings total with members of Congress and anyone else who might help the U.S. become more green. They even got a good reception in the office of U.S. Rep. Steve Southerland, a first-term congressman who represents this district — and who sided with the majority on the two votes noted above. They said they didn't run into anybody denying the science of climate change. Byrd said those they met were "open" and willing to listen to their pitch.

And their pitch is this: Let's spread the word on the benefits of a "fee and dividend" system to promote the use of alternative energy sources. Now, maybe you've been following the issue closer than I have, but I thought "fee and dividend" was just a snazzy new term for "cap and trade," which in Washington is about as poisonous a term as "liberal," "tax hikes" or "Planned Parenthood." But it's a whole new way of attacking the issue of climate change by economic means. The basis of "cap and trade" is the government limiting carbon emissions and then issuing carbon credits, which can be traded like any other commodity. If your company can amass enough credits, it can continue to burn fuel just as it always has. The problem with cap and trade is two-fold: Government is involved, and it creates a great deal of uncertainty in pricing. "Fee and dividend" puts a fee on all carbon-based fuels, then returns that money to consumers to spend as they wish. The goal is that, with your share, you might buy a more efficient refrigerator or even put the money toward a solar water heater or a hybrid car. If you're a certain columnist in Tallahassee, you could put it toward fuel for your aging V8 Mustang — it's your choice. But make no mistake — carbon-based fuels would cost more, reflecting, proponents say, the true cost of their effect on our health and our environment. Compared with "cap and trade," it's a simpler system, and more predictable. You know what prices will be, except for normal fluctuations. But the real beauty of "fee and dividend" is that it's revenue-neutral. Government doesn't skim off a percentage to put toward pork projects — the money goes back to citizens. Technically, a guy like Rep. Southerland, who has signed a "No Climate Tax Pledge" to "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue," could support "fee and dividend." (Note: I'm not holding my breath.) Locally, the Citizens Climate Lobby members hope to convince local businesses — and thus, maybe representatives like Southerland — of the benefits. Such a program would have obvious winners, such as companies that sell solar heating and power systems. But it also could spur the sale of everything from more efficient pool pumps and washing machines to paints and carpets that use less carbon in their manufacture. And our universities could help develop new clean industries for our area. "Efficiency always pays," Adams said. Climate change is an issue we'll have to address sooner or later. Folks like Adams, Boueres, Byrd and me think sooner is a great idea. "We want to elevate the debate when it comes to these issues," Byrd said.

I'm still depressed. But not as much as before. â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Contact Mark Hohmeister at mhohmeister@tallahassee.com or (850) 599-2330. Or follow him on Twitter @MarkHohmeister.