Taking Climate Change Seriously -- Finally

The Nation: Obama And McCain Both See Climate Change As A Top Priority

(The Nation)  This column was written by Mark Hertsgaard.

---

It's been a long time coming, but the United States is finally going to have a President who takes climate change seriously enough to do something about it.

The day before Senator Barack Obama clinched the Democratic Party's nomination for president, his colleagues in the United States Senate began preparing for the biggest global warming vote in Washington's history. The bill under debate, The Climate Security Act would for the first time impose large, mandatory cuts on greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The bill was not expected to become law, if only because of President Bush's promised veto, and by the end of the week stalling tactics by Senate Republicans had blocked the bill from even coming to a vote. Nevertheless, the Senate debate was a defining moment in US climate politics, not least for what it revealed about how the next President -- either Obama or Senator John McCain -- will address the climate issue when he takes office in 2009.

In contrast to Bush, both McCain and Obama have long said that climate change is a top-priority threat that requires real action now. Environmentally, Obama's proposals are stronger. The Democrat favors what science says is necessary: an 80 percent cut in emissions by 2050. As President, Obama would achieve this through a "cap and trade" system that sells corporations permits to emit greenhouse gases and then invests the resulting revenue in green energy development and rebates to Americans hit by higher energy prices.

McCain, however, can rightly point out that he has been talking about climate change longer than many Democrats; the Republican co-sponsored the last important Senate climate bill, in 2005. McCain says he supports a 60 percent emissions cut by 2050. But it is doubtful his proposed approach would actually deliver such large cuts, since his cap-and-trade system would give most permits away for free, a provision environmentalists attack as a corporate giveaway. Obama would sell all emissions permits at auction. Obama is also much less enthusiastic than McCain about nuclear power as a response to climate change.

The Climate Security Act aimed to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050, again through a cap-and-trade system. Thus the bill went further than McCain's proposal but fell well short of Obama's. It also confronted both candidates with a political minefield. With gasoline hovering near $4 a gallon in the US, politicians were wary of any measure that might raise prices even higher. Further complicating matters was an explosive new scientific study that warned that reversing climate change would require a swift end to burning coal. Neither candidate was likely to endorse that idea (though Obama's website said he'd consider it), since it would all but doom the candidate's chance to win in Appalachia and other coal regions in the general election in November.

The coal ban recommendation came from James Hansen of the NASA space agency, the dean of America's climate scientists. In April, Hansen co-authored a study that found that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut much more sharply than anyone had previously assumed if humanity wished to avoid the worst scenarios of climate change, including a melting of polar ice that would eventually raise global sea levels by twenty-five meters, putting most of civilizations under water. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere in 2007 was 385 parts per million and climbing 2 ppm a year. Alarmingly, Hansen's study concluded that 350 ppm is the maximum level compatible with a livable planet. In other words, humanity is already in the danger zone and must reverse course rapidly.

"We need a moratorium on the construction of traditional coal-fired power plants by 2010 and a phase-out by 2030," Hansen said in an interview. This farewell to coal "has to be global," the NASA scientist added. That means it must include China and India, which won't be easy; both countries insist that burning coal is essential to lifting their people out of poverty.

Yet eliminating coal-burning is not as unthinkable as it recently seemed. Already about sixty of the 150 US coal plants planned a year ago have been cancelled and another fifty are being contested. And, Hansen noted, a recent article in Scientific American suggested that solar thermal power could supply all of America's electricity. A self-described political conservative, Hansen blamed "special interests" for blocking these and other green energy solutions. "There's no reason we can't make the changes necessary except that the fossil fuel industries are determining governments' policies," he said.

The Climate Security Act was a case in point, argued Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, which urged defeat of the bill if it was not strengthened. Contrary to the bill's stated goal of 71 percent emissions cuts by 2050, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that it would deliver cuts of just 25 percent. Why? Largely because the bill gave away for free 49 percent of the emissions permits, thus reducing the incentive for corporations and consumers to switch to greener energy sources.

But even this corporate-friendly approach did not satisfy Senate Republicans, most of whom deny that climate change is real in the first place. Using blatant delaying tactics, including a demand that the entire 491-page bill be read aloud on the Senate floor, Republicans succeeded in a filibuster that blocked the full Senate from voting on the bill, which they labeled a giant tax increase.

Both Obama and McCain told the bill's sponsors they would have voted for it, however, and that is what matters most going forward. The real fight over a new American policy on climate change comes next year, when a new Congress and President tackle the issue afresh. Despite the weaknesses of the Climate Security Act, the fact that it reached the Senate floor marked real progress; the bill's rhetorical commitment to 70 percent emissions reductions went well beyond what was considered politically realistic on Capitol Hill even a year ago. But the Earth does not compromise. If Hansen and other scientists are right, the US will have to take much larger steps, soon, if humanity is to salvage a livable planet.

[jaykay3141]

/* "Then they are both idiots because there is no such thing." - pghlady */

Average water temperatures rising around the globe.
Plants blooming as much as two weeks earlier than "normal" in many regions.
Glaciers receding faster than at any time on record.
The North Polar ice cap down over 40% in the last 3 decades.
and more and more...

Whether it''s all due to burning fossil fuels or partly due to natural variation, climate change IS happening and faster than we can react to it.

There are some really good schools in PGH, PGHlady. Please take at least one basic earth-science course and then come back and post some more.

[jon2012-2009]

Remember one of Bush%u2019s 2000 campaign promises was a %u201Ccommitment to a new era of environmental protection%u201D and to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in record time he broke his promise by refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty limiting global warming gases. This was the most significant environmental commitment made under his campaign, and the president walked away from it in exactly 53 days.

Posted by neknilk at 11:24 AM : Jun 09, 2008

Bush is a liar extraordinare. This is the guy whose favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ, right? Boy, Americans just eat up this kind of cr**ap. So four years later in 2004, they elected him again. Reality has caught up to most people now, I think. We''ll see come November how McSame does.

[jcr103]

Before Republicans can talk seriously about global climate change they have to pull their heads out of their a**. That''s not likely to happen anytime soon. Instead, everyone else is going to have to keep pushing for change and lead the way even if Republicans are in self-imposed denial.

[jon2012-2009]

Global warming is not going to go away. The sooner we start getting serious about it, the better prepared we are in the decades ahead. It will take time and cost money to develop new technologies and shift economies from fossil fuels to renewables. But denying global warming is going to be more costly in the long run.

[neknilk]

Obama has a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters and supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005, and supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 88 percent in 2005. He is a cosponsor of the most aggressive climate-change legislation in the Senate, which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a score of ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV. McCain''s lifetime LCV score of 24 shows a history of siding with the polluters and special interests, and a consistent pattern of ducking important environmental votes. Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote last year.

Remember one of Bush%u2019s 2000 campaign promises was a %u201Ccommitment to a new era of environmental protection%u201D and to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in record time he broke his promise by refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty limiting global warming gases. This was the most significant environmental commitment made under his campaign, and the president walked away from it in exactly 53 days.

Do you really think McCain will go against the wishes of his fellow Republicans and his lobbyist and special interest cronies and do something about climate change?

[stn_sage]

McCain is too beholden to corporate America to make any changes of note, anybody who thinks he will, is deluded!

Obama will try to make some changes---he won''t bury the science, will try to take part internationally, and push for expansion of alternate forms like wind, solar, etc---but even so, I doubt he makes needed drastic changes, either!

The kind of changes we need will only be made in the face of national disaster!

[pghlady3]

Then they are both idiots because there is no such thing.

[ubrew12]

Article: "China and India...insist that burning coal is essential to lifting their people out of poverty. "
They''d better shift thinking soon or that slow sucking sound is going to be places like Bangladesh slipping underwater. Great way to ''lift'' your people out of poverty.

[irliberal]

It''s about time!! GO OBAMA 08!! WOOHOO!