Peter Lehner's Blog
We Need Climate Solutions, Not a Costly Status Quo
June 10, 2008
Posted by Peter Lehner in Solving Global Warming
Last week, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act fell short of being passed by the Senate. It was an historic moment, in which the United States faced two choices: to accept the responsibility of limiting our carbon emissions for the sake of our economy, our culture, and our lives, or to maintain the status quo at considerable expense. Unfortunately, they chose the status quo.
And yet, there is good news. As Dan Lashof noted a few days ago, “the process of bringing the Climate Security Act to the U.S. Senate floor advanced the prospects for enacting the federal legislation we need to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.”
When the next president takes office, the debate over climate change will start again, but this time from a considerably stronger position. 54 Senators – a majority – voiced their support for moving forward with the first stand-alone climate bill to reach the Senate floor. The rest were forced to consider climate legislation, some for the first time.
For NRDC, the failure of the bill to pass has raised the question of how do we continue to raise climate awareness, and guarantee the passage of the climate bill next year. I’m sure many environmental organizations are asking the same thing.
In answering this question, we should look at the status quo. For instance, are our communities designed for humans, or for cars? Is our electrical system designed to provide us with what we want – efficient lights and refrigerators – or to support the power companies?
A recent report makes clear that the cost of inaction is greater than action, to the tune of 3.6 percent of GDP – or $3.8 trillion annually in today’s dollars – by 2100. Another report shows that climate legislation would add additional green jobs, and would help America make the transition to a more efficient, low-carbon economy.
That our Senators prevented the passage of the climate bill that would have done nothing but improve our economy, our ecology, and our health was unreasonable, to say nothing of being irresponsible.
And so I would urge everyone to call their Senators and Congressmen and encourage them to vote on behalf of climate change legislation. Call your families in swing states and ask them to call their representatives. To repeat what I’ve said before, we need action – and action on a massive scale.
Some leading politicians are beginning to understand this need – in large part because of the debate over the Climate Security Act. Last week, David Doniger told The New York Times that if we don’t “get it done this year…we start next year just a few steps from the finish line.” Senator Boxer echoed this sentiment, when she said, “We have a road map as to where our colleagues are. We will give the road map to the next president so he knows where our colleagues are and where are the consensus areas and where are the difficult areas.”
Of the presumptive presidential nominees, John McCain has indicated that climate change is a top priority. In reference to climate change, Barack Obama has said, “The future of our planet is at stake.”
It's time for solutions.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Peter Lehner
- Executive Director
- New York City
- I am the Executive Director of NRDC. The position is my second at NRDC. Beginning...
- more→
Comments
Gary Rucinski — Jun 10 2008 06:14 PM
Although I thought this bill too flawed to represent good policy (see H.R. 6186 as a counter example), I believe its defeat is a wake-up call for any person or organization interested in seeing the US take responsible action on Global Warming.
My conclusion is that we all ought to begin mobilizing immediately to see that the next bill that is introduced is clean, unbiased and fair from the outset; that there is a 50-state strategy to pressure officials to pass the bill as introduced; that a clear majority of the American people understand that taking action on GW need not impose significant costs and may even boost the economy; and that the will of the people is undeniably behind the concept of accepting short term pain and sacrifice in favor of longer term gain and energy security.
Without this committment being begun now and carried through into next year at this time, there is real risk of Congress once again ducking responsibility, caving to business interests, and failing to truely represent the interests of the people of the United States.
Marcia Shivar — Jun 11 2008 03:24 PM
Gary, I couldn't have said it better myself! You hit the nail on the head with your comment. We must begin immediately and make sure all 50 states are involved and in agreement with what we have to achieve to save our planet.
Peter Lehner — Jun 12 2008 02:27 PM
Thank you both for your comments. I agree with what you've said about the need for continued action on behalf of climate change. We at NRDC will continue to push for a policy that combines a cap on carbon emissions with efficiency standards and innovation policies to get new, and even existing, technology off the shelves and into the streets. As a study release by McKinsey pointed out, the fastest, and cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by investing in energy efficiency. This has to be part of the solution. We can get there by engaging states, companies, representatives and citizens. With your help, we'll be successful.
Thanks, Peter.
Dan Troutman — Jun 12 2008 09:55 PM
I disagree with the idea that the so-called "green" jobs will automatically be "good paying."
1. After the inital construction boom to build wind turbines and towers, they only require periodic "greasing" several times a year. This is not a high-skilled task guaranteeing high pay!
2. Take a look next time at where all of the Compact Flourescent Light bulbs are manufactured - CHINA!? Congress and American industry have already lost this war to produce these green products.
3. Any idea at who makes the Litium Ion batteries and where? They're asian countries without a single battery plant in the US. Again, Congress lost the opportunity to lure new green technology to America.
The hype of good paying "green" jobs is nothing more than a farce - take a look around at the origin of current green products.
Gary Rucinski — Jun 13 2008 08:37 PM
I had made the comment that I thought consistent policy that encourages transition to a green energy infrastructure might actually boost the American economy; I did not say specifically that the jobs would be good paying. But let's just take a hypothetical:
Suppose right now we had carbon cap legislation in place enforced by the current administration. Then what you would see is a lot of investment being made to install PV and passive solar by individuals and businesses. This investment would go a long way in helping to absorb the current glut of construction workers who are out of work due to the slump in the housing market.
There are no panacea's or silver bullets to get us out of this mess. We are going to have to take risks. Some people are going to have to change jobs. Energy companies are going to have to transition to using renewable- instead of fossil-based sources or go out of business. But if some companies fail to adapt and people lose their jobs, there will be other companies that succeed and will be hiring people. This is how our market has always worked.
And, to your other point about jobs moving overseas, the good thing about renewable energy is that it has to be produced locally and cannot really be imported or outsourced. If we don't produce the components here, at least the jobs to install and maintain the renewable energy plant must be here. I agree that it's a shame the US isn't more strategic in its approach to industrial and trade policy, but that's a different matter.