What's the opposite of global progress? US Congress

I used to think that it would take a major environmental disaster to kick the country into gear and get serious about climate change, but after three months of the BP Gulf oil disaster and record breaking heat waves across the country the Senate has given up on passing a comprehensive climate bill. While official statements suggest that the bill will be up for debate again after the August recess, it is doubtful that the Democrats will try to push hard on a controversial bill with the midterm elections approaching.

This will ultimately be more devastating to the UN climate negotiations than the failure to produce anything meaningful from the Copenhagen talks last December. Prospects for a legally-binding climate treaty were already nonexistent for COP-16 this December in Cancun and slim for COP-17 next year, but if the US fails to act by then the negotiations could completely fall apart. China and India are dumbfounded by this latest US development as they make serious headway in their climate efforts, and if the US continues to show up to the table empty-handed they may just walk away, having no incentive to stay involved.

I see a great parallel here between the financial crisis and the climate crisis. During the financial crisis, the government didn't get involved until Lehman Brothers failed, bailing out the rest of the banks. Will the US stay uninvolved in the climate crisis until the oil runs out or islands start disappearing? I certainly hope not, but there's not much giving me hope otherwise.

My Vision for Our Decade

Although I don't know where yet, in the fall I will head off to law school to learn about resolving environmental disputes. I see the Senate and U.N. eventually passing climate legislation that's good but not great, and it will be up to the youth to make it so. Faced with new restrictions, business and industry will have two choices: to become our allies, working together toward compromises that can benefit the interests of everyone involved, or continue to be our enemies in an increasingly costly battle over regulation. In the midst of all this I see myself working to bring everyone to the table, business leaders, environmentalists, and government agents alike. Through this work we can create communities that provide their own energy, grow their own food, and take care of their own waste - communities that care about themselves and their future.

For Science!

Due to the highly political nature of the subject of its research, the IPCC is constantly under attack from critics and those opposed to climate change action, who hope to use anything that can be regarded as a mistake on behalf of the panel to turn public opinion against taking action on climate change. The most recent “scandal” concerns the panel's assessment of economic losses from catastrophe and their relation to observed global temperature increase.

The story, published by the Times Online on January 24, accused the IPCC of cherry-picking data from a then-unpublished study on the increasing costs of hazard loss since 1950. The study, which has since been published, compared the costs incurred by natural disasters to growth in population and infrastructure and found no increase in the impact of disasters, after accounting for growth, between 1950 and 2005, and a slight 2% increase in the impact of disasters between 1970 and 2005, when strong rises in global average temperature began.

However, the published study also included caveats on technical factors, such as strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 and currency exchange rates, that could produce bias in the result, and so the author added a caution that there was “insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses”.

While revelations such as this reflect poorly on the IPCC (as they are designed to do), more scrutiny should also be given to the sources of these “scandals”, as it would appear that the Times Online is itself cherry-picking information to discredit the panel. The IPCC assessments are based on the entire body of climate change research, and one study that stands out would be insufficient to sway the conclusions reached by the entire panel.

The reality of the situation is exactly that. Although AR4 references the study that found the 2% increase in catastrophe losses since 1970, it also mentions that no other study has been able to detect a similar trend. The report offers a balanced view not only on this particular issue but on all of the research available at the time it was written. In fact, many have called the reports and processes of the IPCC conservative in that they require the agreement of hundreds of scientists before anything can be published.

In contrast, the Science and Environment Editor for the Times Online needs the approval of only a handful of managing editors (if that) for a story to be published, and while we hope that all journalists are proud enough of their profession to maintain their integrity, the truth is that the profit motive plays a much bigger role in the decision-making process of the editorial board for one newspaper than it does for a diverse group of hundreds of scientists – the amount of advertising on each group's respective website speaks clearly to this fact.

Virginia Powershift 2009 Recap

Virginia Powershift 09 wrapped up a couple of hours ago, and after some good food (Chipotle!) and digesting (no pun intended) everything that happened, I wanted to share some of my thoughts. I'll start with some of the activities of the conference, then move to general observations.

The Petrol-Free Gypsy Carnival Tour: this was incredible! Thanks so much to Nick and Rachel. Over 11 days this past summer, they biked from Harrisonburg to Virginia Beach while making stops along the way to play shows and spread the good word about touring with people power instead of oil power. Oil funds war and other social injustices, as well as contributes to climate change, and so by opting out of oil they chose to support a more noble cause. I have no clue how to pull it off, but don't be surprised to see Dubnium biking around Virginia next summer.

Probably the most surprising thing I learned this weekend was that campaign contributions in Virginia are unlimited. Of course, a quick trip over to the Virginia Public Access Project makes that quite apparent: the largest contribution by an individual to McDonnell's campaign was $125,000, while for Deeds it was $175,000, and both campaigns had multiple organizations which had contributed over $1 million.

But by far the best workshop I attended was the social media workshop hosted by Tom Dawkins, currently of Ashoka. Tom is their "social media guy" and had a lot to say about the strategies and pitfalls of using social media and how it is well suited to activism. One of the best lessons I took away from this workshop was only doing as much as you can be good at; focus on your strengths, yes, but also focus them in a way that's truly effective. Climate change is only one of many issues I care deeply about, so this made me evaluate how effective I was working on multiple issues and projects as opposed to focusing on one or two, but I think that sort of evaluation leaves out the value of community and coalition-building that results (partially) from what I do. And, ultimately, those are two things that can always be added to; after all, "the market for belief is infinite".

Saturday was October 24th, the 350.org international day of action. Ours was one of over 5,300 actions that took place that day, and with participation in over 180 countries, this can be considered the first ever global day of action for anything.

Then, of course, came the keynotes. Mike Tidwell was brilliant as always, vividly describing the shocking effects of climate change already happening while passionately telling us why he fights on every day, and why we should too. Rachel Butler of SustainUS added another number to the mix: 43, as in 43 days (42 now) till the Copenhagen climate conference, 43 days left to get our members of Congress to pass as strong a climate bill as possible, and 43 days left to ensure that Obama will be in Copenhagen, leading the way as the world prepares to deal with the greatest threat to mankind ever known. Jessy Tolkan was very much herself and brought the fire and passion to us straight from Times Square, which 350 had taken over as part of the day of action, and couldn't have done more to get everyone there excited. She brought up one really important point during her speech, one again of numbers, which I'll elaborate on with the rest of this post.

At one point Jessy made a reference to the "60 or 70" people in the room, but in reality at the time there were probably less than 50 people. And that's embarrassing. This event should have easily had a couple hundred people, if not a thousand, but for various reasons didn't. And while I can't speak specifically to the organizing effort by George Mason students or recruiting efforts by other schools, I do have a couple observations to make as to why Virginia Tech, one of the top schools in recruiting for both national Powershifts, showed up with only 6 students.

Quite simply, the problem was us, the experienced Hokie climate activists. We (and I use this term loosely, as I personally did not have much to do with planning) may have thrown a somewhat successful Virginia Powershift last year, but it was our collective attitude that helped kill Powershift this year. We didn't think it was worth our time, we lacked faith in the ability of those organizing, perhaps because of our inflated egos from the long summer months we spent planning as opposed to five short weeks, and overall we didn't care. We didn't care if Powershift succeeded, and maybe even wanted it to fail because we'd be proven right, better, superior to those organizing this one.

Well, sorry guys, but by every standard other than numbers I consider this Powershift a success. Every workshop I attended gave me quality information and networking contacts that I know will continue to help me from this point forward. The small numbers might even have turned out to be a plus for networking because of the informal environment created.

Another point brought up to me at the post-Powershift party last night was that some people felt that they didn't need to attend because they already knew everything. This is the pinnacle of folly, one because you can never know everything, and two because Powershift is about more than just learning. It's about putting that knowledge to work and creating change in our communities and around the world. I know most of us know this already, but it's easy to forget; Powershift is a good reminder of why we're doing what we're doing, how important this is, and how many others are there right alongside us.

So what to do now? I'll reiterate what Rachel Butler said: we have 42 days till Copenhagen to get our political leaders on board. Are you up to the challenge?

Virginia Tech: Move Beyond Coal

This week, Apple joined a host of other companies, including Exelon, the nation's largest utility, in resigning from the US Chamber of Commerce because of the group's opposition to climate legislation. Other companies to resign include PNM Holdings and PG&E, two large utilities, and Nike decided to step down from the Board of Directors. The Chamber's calls for a new Scopes Monkey trial on climate change, as well as their intensive lobbying efforts against the climate bill now before the Senate, prompted the string of resignations.

What we're seeing here is a clash of paradigms between those who want the world to stay the way it was, and those who are accepting the new reality of the situation we face. As John Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon, put it, “The carbon-based free lunch is over”. Fossil fuel energy is on its way out, and it's up to Virginia Tech to decide whether they will keep up with the times or become completely irrelevant. And this has to start right here on campus, with our very own coal-fired power plant.

The good folks at Exelon aren't the only ones who realize this change is coming. China has recently announced plans to cap and reduce their carbon intensity (that is, tons of CO₂ per dollar GDP). Because of this and other recent efforts by the Chinese government, China is quickly becoming one of the fastest growing markets for renewable energy. Or, to look at it from another perspective, consider Applied Materials, a US-based microchip manufacturing company that also makes machines that manufacture solar panels. Currently they have 14 factories making these machines, and not a single one of them is in the US. The green energy economy is quickly expanding, but it seems the US is being left behind.

Coal is dirty business. From the mining and extraction to the burning and disposal of its waste, there is no aspect of using coal for energy that does not harm the environment. In addition, the impacts of climate change are becoming readily apparent, and with CO₂ levels soaring above scientists' worse-case scenarios, things are looking grim. The time for action is now.

Virginia Tech’s Beyond Coal student group is working hard to be a leader in the green energy movement through supporting the Obama Administration’s efforts to reduce climate change through legislation and by raising awareness of the irreversible damages of coal burning. On September 16th, a group of students marched from the coal plant to Burruss Hall to present a report on the dangers of using coal as a power source and the urgency of the need for change. As a university, we have the resources to be leaders in the research, development, and implementation of clean energy alternatives, so why not take that step, close down the coal plant and make a true commitment as a University to sustainability?

We have a choice, we have a voice, and we have the responsibility to preserve our planet. The time is now for us to come together and progress Beyond Coal.

The Other Side Of The Coin

Yesterday, John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, wrote about how we're arguing about the wrong things in the climate debate. It doesn't matter whether we go with a carbon tax or cap and trade, or how we allocate permits. These are merely tools. What we need to focus on is what the solution looks like: renewable energy.

By heavily investing in renewable energy and funding incentive programs (like net metering), we can reinvigorate our economy and breathe some life back into the crippled middle class. But what happens if we don't?

China has pledge $440 to $660 billion dollars over the next ten years to renewable energy. South Korea is ready to invest billions more to gain a competitive edge. Germany is already the biggest player on the market. If we don't make a seriously large investment in renewable energy soon, we could lose our chance to become a major contender in the industry. We'll continue to import our energy, from China instead of Saudi Arabia, and the economy will continue to suffer as more jobs are lost and tax revenue shrinks. Indeed, this could be the turning point for an American manufacturing industry already in decline: will we salvage it, and rebuild our country with a clean energy economy, or are we content to let the decline continue and let fossil fuel execs profit until there's nothing left?

I'll end with a quote from the only TV show I seriously consider worth watching, The Wire. "You know what the problem is? In this country, we used to make stuff. Now we all have our hands in the next guy's pocket."

A Hazardous Situation

Margaret Mead said it best: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Certainly this is true of the various examples of popular epidemiology that we have seen: several concerned citizens, aware at some basic level of an ongoing problem, join together to find answers to their questions and seek justice for those wronged. Deborah Stone (The Policy Paradox, 2001) would call these groups concentrated interests, people closely connected to an issue and heavily invested in achieving their desired outcome, which in most cases consisted of restitution to those who suffered, reparation of damage done to the environment, and better preventive measures by corporations and regulatory agencies.

While the emotionally-charged stories they told were successful in obtaining compensation for victims and cleanup funds not only for their specific sites but for future incidents (i.e. the 1986 Superfund reauthorization), it is doubtful that citizen suits have done much to enhance preventative steps taken except those that stem from a corporation's self-interest in not facing lawsuits of potentially millions of dollars. Not much has changed with the EPA either: a lack of funding and time plus regulations that place the burden on the EPA to show the hazardous nature of new chemicals results in hundreds of untested, potentially unsafe chemicals in the marketplace.

Despite the interest of what could easily be millions of people, whether they be victims or past participants of popular epidemiological studies, environmentalists, or people concerned with their health and the health of their children, these rules are not likely to change anytime soon because of the billions of dollars it would mean for a handful of corporations. According to Stone's logic, the concentrated interest overpowers the dispersed one, and so this is the system our society has chosen: a system that completely disregards the precautionary principle and exposes each of us to thousands of potential risks each day (contrast that with Europe, where rigorous testing is required before a new chemical can be introduced). Yet no one complains forcefully; that is, until another new chemical wreaks havoc and the public cries in outrage against corporate greed and indifference and bureaucratic timidness. But who among us will really stand up for the precautionary principle?

Part II Begins: First Climate Bill Hearing in Senate

That's right, folks: after just passing in the House by a slim margin on Friday, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) will be discussed in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works this Tuesday, July 7. While I won't be able to attend myself, I encourage everyone who can to go to this hearing. It's at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate building, room 406.

The witness list for the hearing is pretty typical, although there are two interesting additions: John Fetterman, the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, and Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi. Fetterman's career as mayor began four years before his election, when he moved to Braddock while working for AmeriCorps. He has been a significant force for development in the area, providing low-rent housing, youth educational opportunities, and community art exhibitions, helping revitalize the town in the face of a declining population and a global recession. He is also a proponent of developing green energy as a means to revitalize the region's economy.

Haley Barbour, the newly appointed chair of the Republican Governors Association in the wake of the Sanford scandal, is certainly not one you would expect to support climate legislation. But despite his dubious record, there are indications that he will bring a reasoned perspective to the debate, unlike that of many extreme conservative pundits. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Governor Barbour promoted New Urbanist principles to the communities faced with the task of reconstruction, saying "the goal is to build the coast back like it can be, rather than simply like it was".

The other witnesses include Steven Chu, secretary of the Department of Energy; Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA; Tom Vilsack, secretary of the Department of Agriculture; and representatives from Dow Chemical Company and the Natural Resources Defense Council. For more information, go here.

Week In Review

For the week of June 20-26, 2009:

Monday/Tuesday: Invisible Children's How It Ends Lobby Days for northern Uganda. We heard from a lot of great people, including Luis Morena-Ocampo, several high-ranking officials from the Ugandan government, including their Minister of Defense, and Tom Shadyac. Of course, I also got the chance to catch up with my IC friends, including Justin and Dyanna.

But the best part came Tuesday. By far the best lobbying experience I've had (when a discussion of peak performances came up on Sunday, this was definitely it for me). I got to listen to Senator Mark Warner's head of homeland security and foreign affairs talk about what he knew, then tell him why I cared about Invisible Children, why he should support the bill and what it would do (the bill is the "LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act").

But even more interesting then that is what he said the senator was up to. Apparently, on Tuesday Senator Warner was convening with other Democratic senators to discuss the merits of the various climate change bills that had been introduced in Congress. It could be a sign that he'll be an ally for strengthening the Waxman-Markey bill in the Senate, but more likely my guess is that he doesn't want to see businesses impacted too harshly.

Wednesday: Basshound @ the 8x10 in Baltimore. Great show; much love to these guys, as always.

Thursday: (my day off) Historic Senate hearing on mountaintop removal. More about that here.

Friday: Big day. First off, went down to the EPA building to protest mountaintop removal.

But the big part came after that. I headed over to the Capitol building for a rally to support strengthening for the ACES Act, from which we split up into three groups to hit the steps of all three House office buildings with banners and big green hard hats. Once we were moved from there, we proceeded to flood the hallways of all three House buildings, talking to every representative we could about strengthening ACES. Finally we took a break and regrouped in the cafeteria of the Longsworth building around 4, then moved out back to the Capitol building to make our way to the House floor in time for Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) hour-long rant. As he finally yielded and the vote began, we were shepherded out of our seats and downstairs only for us to come right back up, just in time to catch the end of the vote. 219 for versus 212 against and ACES passes! Barely. Now onto the Senate battle.

Saturday/Sunday: 1Sky leadership training. And just in time; passing ACES through the Senate will be tough. I have to credit this blog, and my new Twitter account, to this training. And so it begins.