NOW IS PRECISELY THE TIME TO DECARBONIZE

Why have we been slow to eliminate fossil fuels? The basic short answer is fear of disruption. (That would be the we the people, not the we the corrupt oligarchs.  That is a separate post).

Well, disruption is here.  COVID-19 has made sure of that.

Now, there’s nothing left to fear in moving things quickly from carbon-intensive to low- and no- carbon.  Our economy is going to be upside down no matter what we do now.

Indeed, currently elected officials on both sides of the aisle are talking about planned economy efforts, normally associated with war, to build respirators, masks, hand sanitizers.  We are hearing of the first toes in the water to universal basic incomes, with $1000 checks to every American.

We cannot talk about decarbonizing "once we have handled this crisis."  No.  We must address COVID-19 in a climate-conscious way NOW.

There are signs that some of our legislators get this.  Here is a letter from eight senators to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate urging that dollars given in the stimulus are tied to climate-conscious demands.


THIS IS EXCELLENT and should be applauded.  More, everyone's senators and representatives should be hearing from us right now that (1) We support these 8 senators and their request and (2) We do not want people flying now because people need to stop moving around.  The airlines do not need to be propped up.  Instead, we need to pay airline workers and help them move to jobs that support our effort against COVID-19 or to clean energy jobs (railroad anyone?), (3) Cruise ships need to go the way of Fotomat.  At this time with many pressing social needs, cruise ships fill none of them.

    

Please read the senators' letter.  Please applaud these first steps.  Then please call to let them and your legislators know that there is political will for action.

 


We failed to listen to the scientists to get ahead of the COVID-19 curve.  We still have one last chance to flatten the climate curve by halving emissions by 2030.  That starts right now, not in 18 months.

A Climate Policy Allegory: We Must Educate Ourselves, Our Choices Are Going to Matter

Here in NY State, we are on the verge of passing the Climate & Community Protection Act (CCPA).  It is a bill that was promoted by a coalition group, NY Renews, including unions, environmental groups and justice groups.  The CCPA’s goals are to reach 50% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 100% emissions cuts by 2050.

NY Renews has a companion carbon tax called the Climate & Community Investment Act (CCIA).  Presumably, after the CCPA passes, NY Renews will turn its focus to passage of the CCIA.  This carbon tax would start at $35/ton.  The funds collected would be used as follows: 30% Climate Jobs & Infrastructure, 33% Community Just Transition Fund, 7% Worker and Community Assurance Fund and 30% New Yorker Energy Rebate Fund.

This carbon tax would be promoted as centering on justice concerns.

There is another carbon tax proposal that has been introduced into the NY legislature.  This carbon tax would take 60% of the collected monies and return them to the 60% poorest citizens of the state.  The other 40% of the collected monies would be invested in driving  the growth of a clean energy economy.  This bill, known as the “Parker/Cahill Bill,” for its sponsors in the Senate and the Assembly, is essentially revenue neutral for the poor and middle class, who would get a carbon dividend. 

This carbon tax would help the poor, regardless of their identification with any particular group, be it a union, or a group that has suffered discrimination in our nation through our history.

I am sitting here in a voting precinct that voted for Trump, an almost universally white precinct, that has never recovered from the 2006 crash.  This district is rural, poor and white.  People are struggling to stay employed and to pay their property taxes.  My neighbors must drive long distances to work, and generally do so in trucks and SUVs, to get through snow that cannot be permitted to stop them from getting to work.  Most homes are heated with oil.

Which carbon tax is implemented here in NY has huge implications for my neighbors.

If the Parker/Cahill Bill is implemented, they will get back a dividend that surpasses their increased energy costs.  If the CCIA is implemented, they will not. 

If the CCIA is implemented, union workers and historically disadvantaged groups will benefit.  If the Parker/Cahill Bill is implemented, these groups will get an equal dividend as anyone else, so long as they are among the poorest 60%.

We are on the cusp of implementing meaningful climate policy.  We have to be, or we will suffer immensely.  How we do it matters.  To real people.  And to whether we can do it in a way that endures. 

My neighbors will rightly reject solutions if those solutions leave them out. 

Finally, no one should delude themselves that this story is peculiar to NY.  Revenue neutrality is about justice.  This is true in NY, in MA, in WA and, yes, in Washington, DC. 

It is one of the reasons I so strongly support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.  Fairness matters.

"Bring it on."

There have been many legitimate criticisms of the Green New Deal (GND).  It is non-binding and it lacks policy detail.  More, it is clearly unrealistic.  It envisions decarbonizing 100% in under a decade.  That's not only electricity.  It includes retrofitting every home in America within ten years, replacing every automobile within ten years, eliminating jetliners within ten years...

However, I think we must recognize the powerful rallying point the GND is serving.  People are angry at the growing wealth disparity fueled by fossil fuel oligarchs who KNOW they are stealing our livable climate to fuel their greed.

As someone that has lived, eaten and breathed climate and worked directly for bipartisan solutions for years, I agree with these assessments of the scope of the infrastructure challenge. We cannot possibly decarbonize in a decade, especially if we close nuclear plants.

Not only are the infrastructure goals unrealistic, the GND is also politically unrealistic. If we are to have an enduring solution, we must have most of the nation on board. Australia is a cautionary tale. They got a carbon tax only to flip the government immediately afterward and it was revoked. Think of the ongoing saga of the ACA here.

It's been over 30 years.

If we are going to address climate, technological limitations and political limitations demand much more than a non-binding, undefined resolution.

In that context, I offer this. We have tried to do this without screaming bloody murder. We have remained rational...ever since 1988 when James Hansen testified in Congress and earlier.

Nancy Pelosi is ROCKING IT.

Those who are passionate but not clear-eyed must rally.  We need them to rally. Thank goodness we have Nancy Pelosi, who is giving them room to explode on the scene, while creating room for “sensible” alternatives to emerge from the climate change hearings.

I am partial to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s response to Mitch McConnell’s forcing of a Senate vote on the GND.  Whitehouse is a fiscal conservative climate hawk who has placed carbon pricing solutions at the top of the list. He has been offering to talk with GOPs on climate for years. When McConnell announced he was bringing the GND to the floor to vote "no" on it, Whitehouse responded with a cynical laugh and said “this is what you have to offer after having nothing for years? I can hardly wait for this discussion.  Bring it on.  Please.”  (Paraphrased).

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Here’s a moderate, business-minded climate hawk Senator who will use this vote as a chance to slam the GOP for failing to offer anything of substance.  For failing to offer anything of substance for DECADES.

Here is his 10 minute response, one of his regular weekly talks on the Senate floor dedicated to climate.


For me, the bottom line is this.  We must rally.  But we also must ensure that we do not let the GND be a litmus test.  Let us allow for folks to say “I support the goals of the GND, so let’s sit down and hammer out policies to actually move toward those goals.”

And let us also use the political moment to demand everyone offer something better.

It is time for the conversation.  Bring it on.  Please.

Carbon Pricing 2019-The Nuts and Bolts

Carbon Pricing
There are several different forms of carbon pricing.  Each is designed to create a disincentive to use products that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The two main ways they vary is as to (1) how the price is assessed (tax versus cap & trade), and (2) what is done with the money after it is collected (returned to all citizens/revenue-neutral versus retained and used for various means/revenue positive).

Here is a very basic review of these varied mechanisms.

I. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act 2019 (H.R. 763).  (EICDA) This is a fee collected on all carbon-emitting products that enter the economy at point of well, mine or port. It is revenue neutral; all fees collected are returned to all citizens and legal permanent residents in equal amounts, monthly.  Because none of the money collected is retained by the government, it is said to be “revenue neutral.”  Studies project that the bottom 2/3 of earners, who have smaller homes, fewer boats, RVs, and other luxury items, receive back more in the dividend than they pay out in the fee.  The top 1/3 of emitters pay out more in the fee than they receive back in the dividend.  Emissions are projected to drop 40% by 2030 solely due to the EICDA and 90% by 2050.  Projections also show that 2.1 million jobs will be added in 10 years.  The economy will grow as a direct result of the EICDA.

There is a “regulatory  pause” on federal regulations designed specifically to target carbon emissions.  This pause is immediately ended if the nation is not meeting emissions cuts targets.  This pause does not affect any regulation other than federal regulations designed purely to cut carbon emissions.  Auto emissions standards are untouched.  Methane leakage regulations are untouched. This regulatory pause impacts one existing regulation:  the now defunct Clean Power Plan.  It does not impact state, local or regional regulations.

There is no provision reducing fossil fuel company liability.  Fossil fuel companies remain wholly subject to tort law.

-The average family of four receives $47/mo in the first year, $288/mo after 10 years, and $396/mo after 20 years.
-Gas prices go up 15 cents/gallon in the first year, and 10 cents/gallon each year thereafter
-The price on carbon will reduce direct fossil fuel use and also derivatives like plastics

(Note:  This bill also includes a “border adjustment” which places the fee on any imported products only if the product comes from a country without a comparable price on carbon.  This creates an incentive to importing countries to implement a price on carbon rather than pay into US coffers).

II. The Climate Leadership Council Proposal. This is a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend as well.  It begins at $40/ton and rises steadily, but more slowly than the EICDA.  It would end fossil fuel regulations outright and prevent tort liability for the fossil fuel companies.

III. Cap and Trade.  The Waxman-Markey Bill of 2009.  The government sets limits on how much carbon can be emitted and auctions off the rights to emit that carbon.  The limits gradually decline annually.  Previous challenges with this mechanism included the right to increase emissions if they were offset (a carbon reduction plan was instituted).  Corporations were buying and selling carbon rights and emissions were not limited because offsets took the place of the emissions cuts that were supposed to happen.  Money collected can be retained to raise revenue or returned, varying from plan to plan.  Waxman-Markey retained the revenue.

 IV. The Tax Swap Proposals.  Favored by many conservatives, this bill places a fee on all carbon emitting products and is revenue neutral just like the EICDA.  However, money is not returned equally to all citizens.  Money collected is returned by reducing income taxes in amounts equal to the fee collected.  People who do not pay income taxes receive nothing back.  People who pay little in tax see little in returned money.  The wealthiest, with the greatest taxes, receive the most back.

BC uses a tax swap along with a tax credit for the poorest citizens. It started at $9/tonne in 2008 and up $5 each year. It cut fuel usage 16% while surrounding Canada went up 3%.

V. Congressman VanHollen Bill 2014 (Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2014).  Rep. VanHollen has introduced a cap and trade bill that sets limits on emissions and auctions off the rights to those emissions. This bill closes the offset loop holes.  In addition, it adds a dividend.  Like the EICDA, 100% of the proceeds of the auctions are returned to each person.  The advantage of this bill over the EICDA is that it sets carbon limits according to the scientific projections of what is required to remain under 2 degrees celsius change.  The drawback is a more costly and complicated mechanism of implementation.  Moreover, the EICDA has a mechanism to adjust the tax to ensure targets are met.

VI. Revenue Raising Approaches.  The Boxer-Sanders bill started at $20/ton and rose to $33/ton after ten years.  It rebated 60% to citizens, retaining 40% for subsidies and deficit reduction.

VII. John Delaney’s Tax Pollution, Not Profits Act 2017.  This was a carbon tax swap-dividend hybrid.  It was not 100% revenue neutral.  It retained a portion of the money to retrain or fund retirement of coal workers.  Those at or near the poverty level receive a rebate, with those at the poorer end receiving more.  The primary return of the funds was in reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%.  This bill was heralded by EAI, conservative think tank and Bob Inglis, as a very significant development in that a Democrat was putting corporate tax cuts on the table, making this a big step forward in seeking a bipartisan solutions to carbon emissions.  (Schatz/Whitehouse's American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act was introduced shortly thereafter and is very similar to Delaney's Tax Pollution, Not Profits Act, differing in allotments of rebates and tax cuts and rates of increasing taxation.)

As of September 1, 2018:

• 46 national jurisdictions and 25 subnational jurisdictions are putting a price on carbon.
• 53 carbon pricing initiatives are implemented or scheduled for implementation. https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/news/2018/10/23/update-carbon-pricing-dashboard

Due to limited formatting options, this blog did not support a more readable table, which you can find at this link.

Keep Talking about Climate Change

Conversations can be powerful.  Have them.

Today, a co-worker told me his next car would be another muscle car.  He knows I work on climate.  He knows I drive an EV.  He knows I advocate for EVs and a carbon tax.  He knows that the climate is changing.  He knows that humans are the cause. He is a liberal that donates to public radio.  He cares about our world.

I have always worked hard to remain patient in my communications on climate.  Alienating people, shaming people, dismissing people's concerns?  That will generally shut down communication.  That is definitely not what I want to accomplish. So I take it step by step.

But today, this coworker, let's call him Peter, crossed a line. I just couldn't understand why he was taunting me...for that is what it was... a taunt, daring me to respond forcefully.  Maybe Peter was looking for me to set limits?  Maybe he wanted to argue?  I didn't know.

I first suggested once again that he test drive my EV.  I reminded him of the instant torque.  But then, when he dismissed my offer yet again, I found myself reminding him of the IPCC report..."we have just 12 years to cut emissions in half."  "Yes, I know.  We are fucked," he said.  "No," I said. "We are not fucked. THAT is a cop out."  

Then he did it.  He had the temerity to raise George Carlin.  "Really?" I thought, "Really, George Carlin?"  He didn't get the chance to finish Carlin's quote.  I pounced, "I hate that George Carlin tripe." He persisted, "wait, no, he's right, the Earth will be fine." 

"Of course, Earth will be fine," I returned.  "Of course it will. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EARTH. THIS IS ABOUT SUFFERING.  EVERY SINGLE CARBON ATOM LEFT UNDER GROUND MEANS A LITTLE BIT LESS SUFFERING."

He stopped.  Looked up.  "You are very kind, aren't you?"

Everyone around us was now politely walking away.  Have I severed any important working relationships?  Will I now be dismissed as a nutter tree hugger?  Irony that...tree hugger.  That is precisely NOT what I've just made the case for, I think.

Work rolls on and we go our separate ways. And then I receive this email from Peter:  

"Regarding our conversation about global warming this morning: 

As I reflect on it, I more fully understand your point.  There will indeed be MUCH human suffering and massive loss of life.  I, the misanthrope, focus on the entire planet and [insert misanthropic rant here].  I still perceive all of that the same way, but you shone a light on a consequence of global warming that I was just plain not looking at.  ('How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?') 

So, thank you.  Now I have something important to speak about with my sons. 

Have a good weekend, 

Peter" 

What an incredibly kind message.  It left me with gratitude to him and to my own failure to rein in my anger.  It reminded me persistence matters.  Showing up.  We all have to keep showing up.

My reply:

"Dear Peter, 

Thank you so much for this email. After our conversation, my own reflection left me angry at myself because I was so forceful. I try not to foist my perspective on others. But sometimes I get frustrated with the pace of things. Today was one of those days. Your email means a lot to me because it is a reminder that I cannot squelch my passion in my work and communication on climate. 

As to your so-called misanthropic perspective, it is wholly understandable. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my very wise daughter when she was about ten. She asked me if things like cockroaches would survive climate change. I said that I believed so. Her response was 'Good. Then at least we get to start over.'  I think that her view was and is life-affirming. We are cousins to all life and their journey is our journey. You are not being misanthropic—just holistic in view. 

But at the end of recognizing the limits of our powers to destroy, we must also recognize the extent of our power to destroy. Our lives here are a journey and the journey matters just as much as the end result on the day the sun engulfs our planet. It is our obligation to ourselves and all of our cousin-life to journey well. 

Thank you, Peter, for letting me know that our conversation had value for you. It did for me too, especially because of your very kind email. 

Have a good weekend, Claire"

Please, keep showing up.  And, dear reader, have a good weekend.

Resiliency in the Face of Devastating Diagnoses

Anyone paying attention to climate change carries fear of the horrible suffering we have already locked in. A sense of hopelessness that often falls away to doomerism.

Doing the hard work of decarbonizing our economy seems to fail to grasp the enormity of the suffering and pain of drought, hunger, migration and loss.  How can we take these mundane steps when the world is on fire?!?!?

But when you are given horrible news, after you cry, you have to pick yourself up and do what has to be done, even the mundane.

One of the challenges is that the damage we have locked in is enormous, even by conservative projections.  Physically unavoidable harm already certain to come, already here. 

This is a huge blow to anyone first looking at climate change.  Before learning about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland melt or the concerns about methane pockets in the Arctic, they think, "well, this is a giant problem, but it is purely technological and we can fix it.  I will find out how."

Then they start to dig and they find out that it isn't that simple.  Huge changes are already bought and paid for.  Nonrefundable.

So the thing they first sought out to save is no longer savable.  AND that is when they throw up their hands and say "it's too late."  Understandable... IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE SO MUCH.

But anyone that has been diagnosed with cancer will tell you, that is when you cry.  Like hell.  Cry, cry, cry.  THEN, you make an appointment for your treatment and you work to extend your chances of being alive in five years from 50% to 60%.  Or hope that it will turn out they've got good margins on the tumor and you actually are looking at your ten year survival chances, not five year.  And sometimes you cry again.  Often times.  Because we have a lot to grieve.  

Grieving is an important part of resilience.  But it is resilience that we need now.  The ability to incorporate our horrible news without becoming dysfunctional.  Without losing functioning.  Still being able to act.  We must get up and do the mundane and we must do it with strength and power and humor and the whole of our human spirit.

But how?  That is no easy task.  So I looked to the American Psychological Association's words of wisdom on resiliency.  What they have to share is quite useful.  I guess it turns out they know something about human psychology. 

They have ten tips to building resilience.  I’ve quoted their steps and interspersed their application to climate within each numbered section:

(1)  Make connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience. Some people find that being active in civic groups, faith-based organizations, or other local groups provides social support and can help with reclaiming hope. Assisting others in their time of need also can benefit the helper.  

I joined Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and I find it hugely helpful to work with others for a meaningful solution, the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.  I know that my own actions are amplified by the actions of 100,000 others.  And vice versa.  Actually, hugely helpful is an understatement.  Highly empowering.  I have learned a lot from the group.  But CCL isn't for everyone.  There are many other organizations out there working for climate solutions.  If working with a group sounds appealing, find one that is comfortable for you.

(2) Avoid seeing crises as insurmountable problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.

In climate, this is a major stumbling block.  For me, I hold onto the reality that the scientists just are not 100% sure of anything.  There remains great uncertainty about how bad the positive feedbacks will be, how resilient ecosystems will be, whether we can develop means of removing carbon dioxide within the next few decades.  We can see those uncertainties as death sentences or as avenues for working things to our benefit.

(3)  Accept that change is a part of living. Certain goals may no longer be attainable as a result of adverse situations. Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter.

This is HUGE.  We cannot avoid warming the planet.  We already have, about 1C.  And we are seeing fires and droughts and floods and extreme storms, refugee crises, rising sea levels, increases in vector borne diseases.  And we have locked in much worse, that we cannot change.  But there is a difference between seeing the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in 50 years versus 300 years.  Our ability to adapt and mitigate suffering is vastly different in 4C warming versus 2C warming, whether we are looking at sea level rise, crop yields, storm damage, diseases, or any of the impacts of climate change.

(4) Move toward your goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly — even if it seems like a small accomplishment — that enables you to move toward your goals. Instead of focusing on tasks that seem unachievable, ask yourself, "What's one thing I know I can accomplish today that helps me move in the direction I want to go?"

Some days, this is as small as recycling your shampoo bottle.  Other days, it is teaching someone else the value of recycling their shampoo bottle.  And some days, it is seeing your Republican Congressman sponsor a resolution to act on climate.  And on really great days, you see hundreds of thousands march in New York City, or see the Pope release his encyclical, or hear that nearly 200 nations actually agreed on something. 

(5) Take decisive actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.

'Nough said.

(6)  Look for opportunities for self-discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. Many people who have experienced tragedies and hardship have reported better relationships, greater sense of strength even while feeling vulnerable, increased sense of self-worth, a more developed spirituality and heightened appreciation for life.   AND (7) Nurture a positive view of yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience.

Climate activism offers benefits like connecting with others who share your concerns.  You can learn new skills, like writing letters to the editor, making difficult phone calls, or presenting to a local town board.  For me, personally, I am learning to find my own voice through climate action.  And, as it turns out, I won the lottery of climate action perks. I fell in love with a fellow climate activist.  :)

(7)  Keep things in perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion.

Well, I don't think we are in danger of committing this one.  Climate is a really big deal, and it is almost impossible to overstate its impact.  My daughter may have achieved this one a few years ago.  She asked me if creatures like cockroaches and bacteria would survive climate change.  And I said, that, yes, I thought so.  Her response may be resiliency incarnate:  "Well, good, then if we fail, we get to start over."

(8) Maintain a hopeful outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear.

Those uncertainties?  See the path to success.  It is like playing miniature golf.  You have to see where you want the ball to go if you have a hope of getting it there.  On the days we can't do this, take a walk.  There is no reason to make seeing failure a habit.

(9) Take care of yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience.

Know what keeps you feeling strong.  The climate movement sure could use more parties, more shared dinners, more music festivals, more time celebrating successes, no matter how small.

(10) Additional ways of strengthening resilience may be helpful. For example, some people write about their deepest thoughts and feelings related to trauma or other stressful events in their life. Meditation and spiritual practices help some people build connections and restore hope.

The key is to identify ways that are likely to work well for you as part of your own personal strategy for fostering resilience.  Me?  I am writing this blog. :)

It is clear that the past 50 years of warnings on climate have not led to resilient behavior.  We have shut down, denied, ignored or succumbed to the doom of the horror.  Practicing resiliency within the context of climate action may be an essential way to move beyond that.

Why am I a climate activist? Because I love modern convenience and energy.

“U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry...blast[ed] the 2015 agreement to limit global warming. Perry said it was ‘immoral’ to say people should live without fossil fuels.”

Not quite.  It is immoral to deny people access to energy.  To modern medicine. To transport to their work. To jobs. To food. To water. 

I worry about my children's futures.  Will they have a warm home, with food, with light and heat?  Will they have jobs that give them fulfillment while putting food on the table?  Will they enjoy the traditions we share, like coffee and chocolate, with their children?  Will they have security, free of war and strife?

To do all of that, they need access to reliable energy.  And they need people across the globe to access reliable energy.

This past week, the kids and I experienced a week without energy.  Storm Riley cut us off from the grid.  No power, no heat, no WiFi, no lights, no computers, no running water.

We were lucky.  We have resources in a nation full of resources.  The roads were cleared by snow plows, our neighbors helped us clear our driveway, we made our way to the local gym for showers, and the local town for food.  We slept together in a warm bed, made warmer with our loving pets.  We melted snow with our gas stove and had water and food.

Everything I want for my kids, I can provide.  Here, in a nation dependent on fossil fuels.

But those very fossil fuels are driving that which we fear the most...the loss of the security and stability of the energy we currently enjoy.  We had no power.  We had no water.  We had no heat.  Because of extreme weather.  (The local measurements clocked wind speed at 109 mph amidst a snow storm made worse by a melting Arctic).  Our entire town closed down.  No school, no grocery store, no gas station.  We ground to a halt.  

Climate change denied us our energy.  

Utility Poles Destroyed by Hurricane Maria

We have already burned enough fossil fuels to make our week without energy much more likely.  Weeks without energy are going to get even more likely for us all as we burn even more fossil fuels.  And we are not alone.  People world round have been denied access to energy because of escalating climate impacts and our energy vulnerability increases.   Look no further than poor Puerto Rico, still struggling to get basic energy six months after Hurricane Maria.

Immoral?  Immoral is pretending that action on climate will deny people access to reliable energy.  Immoral is pretending that fossil fuels don't endanger access to reliable energy.

Misguided folks on left and right continue to frame the climate debate as "environment versus economy" or "climate action versus energy."  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Climate action is about ensuring energy reliability.  Climate action is about ensuring that we continue to have heat, water, food, security while transitioning our energy infrastructure from fossil fuels to carbon free sources.

As a climate activist, I have ZERO interest in halting all fossil fuels tomorrow.  They are what kept my children safe and warm this past week.  To do otherwise would be immoral.

As a climate activist, I know that we need to transition from fossil fuels to the energy sources that will not harm our children.  We need to do that in a predictable, sustainable way that ensures we all continue to have heat, lights, food, water, jobs and security, before climate change robs us of all that we have built for our children with all of our energy.

There are many ways we can transition from fossil fuels to carbon free energy and we can debate the best ways.  But it is immoral to insist that fossil fuels are necessary to modern convenience.  It is quite the opposite.

Rick Perry's words signal that the upcoming elections will likely reinstitute the old "Energy Voters" messaging that worked so successfully in the past.  It is high time that we make it plain that WE are the energy voters.  Demanding carbon free energy is the demand for access to reliable energy.  And it is the only moral stance.