The Big Blue Tent; There is a General in the House

Yesterday was a big day. Hillary's speech accepting the nomination is a huge moment in history.  But I want to turn my thoughts to another speech yesterday.

I think one of the most essential moments was General Allen's speech.

We just saw the military, the bastion of authority, in all its military trappings, in full drill commands INCLUDE transgender people and gays in what it is protecting. That is HUGE.

The LGTBQ community has just been told they haven't just been allowed to participate in the American Dream by getting to marry.  They are THE America that dreams, along with Muslims and women and blacks and hispanics and anyone else that can fit under that big blue tent.  Not only that, they can fully expect the power of their country to be behind them.  As the adult daughter of lesbians, growing up in a closeted family, with admonitions not to let friends know and worries about what the neighbors thought, I could never have imagined this day.  It is earth shattering.  And wonderful.

The implications of such a speech go much further, though.  You know what else is under that big blue tent?  Climate action.  And the implications for the military being part of the big blue tent for climate change? Wow.

That big blue Democratic tent's Party Platform resolves: "We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis."  Looks like some of those engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, at least, are likely to be military personnel.  Military personnel in high places.

Everyone on the planet is in different levels of climate denial. Even climate activists. But the one group that always seems the closest to hard reality is the military. Those that speak for climate adaptation and mitigation within the military are about as pragmatic and hard nosed as you get. To be honest, I don't want climate solutions left in the hands of someone like Jill Stein who hasn't a clue just how tough this job is going to be, or how energy policy works, or energy markets, or the challenge of dispatchable energy versus baseload, the nuances of a national grid, or of storage and transmission.  The thought of the ultra pragmatic military, that runs like, well, the military, joining other experts in addressing climate change?  Yes, please.

If carbon emissions was not the single most important issue out there, or if we had more time, I would never want to put my support behind what feels so much like blind patriotism.  The sound of delegates chanting "USA" in response to a general vowing to make our enemies afraid is TERRIFYING.  It is somewhat comforting that he pointed out that Hillary Clinton knows how to use other tools besides military might, and it is gratifying to hear the LGTBQ community embraced as brothers and sisters, but we can make no mistake.  The US military is scary, by design.

But I made a decision. I am a climate voter. We have no choice.  We must use the power systems we have in place today to effect change.  We don't have time to create a new economic system first, or get money out of elections, or end corporate charters.  We must cut emissions now.  Now.  Yesterday, now.

As I watched Hillary take the stage, after listening to Chelsea, and I thought about how she has worked for children and women and minorities, I could relate to her, mom to mom.  And, maybe, just maybe, Hillary is exactly the mother we need in this fight. Mothers don't give a sh*t about ideology or shy away from frightening paths when their kids are suffering. They just do what's got to be done. And I am not sure, but I would like to hope, that is exactly what we have forming here. Or that at least we have the potential for its formation here.

Part of me, the part that wants to follow Obama's path of hope, the one that wants to resist cynicism, wants to say, yes, we are seeing what a woman leader can do to bring together the people that are needed to get sh*t done. No bluster, no hot air. Just sheer insistence that it get done.

If we can do that with climate, the mother in me is with her 100%.

The Clinton Climate Message From this Week

There is a lot to digest from this convention, not the least of which is the vision of a general, authority incarnate, being inclusive of gays, entering big tent politics, to a roaring Democratic Party.  What that might mean for climate action is astounding.  But I will save that for a future post.  

In this one, I will focus on the carefully crafted climate message we heard this week, the one that Hillary believes will resonate with voters. The one that demonstrates strong gains in political will by the climate movement.

What is that message?

(1). Throwing out science denial.  Hillary said  "I believe in science.  I believe climate change is real" and the audience returned a fabulous resounding roar of approval.  

Now listen, no one is truly out of denial. The country is moving through the stages of climate denial at varying rates. 

But the anger at the GOP's outright refusal to deal with it now resonates strongly.  And it's about time. 

(2).  Turn the challenge of climate change into opportunity.  The ad below came out this week. It touches on voter anger with denial momentarily (and highly effectively with great sound effects). But more, it makes it clear, she is going to focus on solutions, not doom. In fact, nearly every time climate was raised this week, the narrative was turning climate challenges into opportunities. 

This is consistent with the research.  There is strong evidence that people will more likely accept the problem of climate change once they feel they can accept the solutions. (There's little that is logical about the human psyche, but there you have it). 

We don't need people to feel doomed. We need them to vote for climate solutions. We need them to see how climate solutions will help them continue to get food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. And, indeed, that's the whole point of averting climate catastrophe in the first place. 

(3). Incorporate solutions into other initiatives. In her speech last night, she said, in the first 100 days she would put jobs at the top of the list.  Included in that list was clean energy jobs. 

She has said she intends to create a climate strategy room in her first 100 days. She has said day 1 was the day she would start to address climate. But in a national speech, she puts that within a jobs program narrative. That's something we at Citizens Climate Lobby do, too, offering our carbon fee as a job creation plan. It's effective with people that don't like to talk climate. 

But she isn't going to refer to climate every day. She is instead going to sew it into the other initiatives she must act on.  And that is okay. Because we need climate considered in every other initiative we take. 

But, once again, it means that it comes to us to raise the big C word every day.   These moves are important. But they will not be enough. They show excellent use of the executive power to drive us toward solutions. But they don't teach our neighbors how dire things are. 

And that will come to us. Not to be angry at her for being responsive to the political will and using experts to craft solutions and messages. But to teach our neighbors that she needs our support in climate action and that we need legislators that will hand her even stronger solutions that she can sign into law. And, yes, to move her and us and everyone else a little further out of denial. 

Here is the climate ad that she put out this week.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_ZwguLJVxsM

President Obama's Case for Democracy

Authoritarianism

Or democracy.

Someone has to.

We have to understand who Trump's base is.

They are not stupid. They are not conservatives that have been duped.

They are authoritarians. Their world view is that might makes right. Literally. Please, stop and read that again. Their world view is that might makes right. If someone is stronger, if someone can demonstrate they can win, they are the best leader. This is the philosophical basis of what they believe.

It means when Trump asks Putin to hack Hillary Clinton, he is not trying to lose.

He's not making mistakes.

His call for Russia to hack Clinton is adept.

His supporters are not conservatives. They are authoritarians.

They see this statement as highlighting Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to Putin. And the world. This highlights, to them, HER weakness.

When Trump attacks McCain for being unworthy, it's because he didn't escape. When he gets rich by scam and bankruptcy, he is not showing weakness. He is showing strength to his base. Every time we are disgusted and wonder when they will get it, we are misunderstanding that they DO get it.

Trump is dangerous. We are on a giant playground. And the bullies are looking to their ring leader. And we have to do the hardest thing of all. We have to speak up to say that's wrong, together.

Conservatives. Moderates. Liberals. Progressives.

We must speak up to defend the weaker. Because weakness is not wrongness and being the strongest bully is NOT okay.

And when Obama cries over the deaths of children, he is right. When children die from gun wounds, they are not wrong because their bodies are not stronger than bullets. When people suffer and die because fossil fuel companies act with impunity, they do not simply deserve it.  When the people of Flint are stricken with lead poisoning, the Governor is not right simply because he could get away with it.  

Weakness is not wrongness.  Tears are a sign of compassion.  Compromise is GOOD.  

And when we cannot find perfection in a single candidate, when we get into the messy imperfect world of the politics of democracy and compromises, and we don't get our way on every single thing, we are not wrong.

We are right.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hillary Clinton and Climate Justice

When I first decided to vote for Clinton, because I believe a Clinton administration will result in more emissions cuts than a Sanders administration would have, it was because she is smart, listens to people, works very hard, and had put out lots and lots of plans that could be done from the Oval Office, regardless of congressional action. She was making plans for climate action that had depth, breadth and were politically viable. [Here is the basis of my decision at that time, in March: https://www.facebook.com/notes/claire-cohen-cortright/how-a-climate-voter-can-choose-hillary/1231398743540370 ]

But in April, something changed.  

She reframed her discussion of climate. No longer was she talking about action on climate change. She began to talk about climate justice. Justice for minorities, women and children. She vowed to ensure that women, children and most of all, minorities, were not left out of protection from the ravages of climate, nor out of the opportunities for the solutions. [See the linked policy page at the end of this post].

And it was at that moment, then, in April, that I saw that Hillary had incorporated climate into the framework of what is most important to her...working to protect women, children and minorities, here and abroad. Before, I knew climate was on her "to do" list. But now, I could support her much more passionately. She, like almost all of us, is evolving on climate, getting stronger and stronger with time. For her, to really "get" it meant tying it into her own framework. And she is now doing just that.


She IS cautious. And as an experienced politician that works to build broad coalitions, she may make compromises I might not. For example, she will not put a carbon tax in her plan because she knows it is a red flag for the bull that is across the aisle.

She cannot push for more without our political will. BUT THEN NO ONE CAN. If we deliver a carbon tax to her desk, she will sign it. Of that I have no doubt. In the meantime, she has pages and pages and links and links of specific policy plans to cut emissions. [Here is an excellent article by David Roberts summarizing her climate policy plans: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energy-policies-explained ]


I am a climate voter, first and foremost, and I am very proud to support her.

Here is her April 13 Plan to Fight for Environmental and Climate Justice:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/04/13/hillary-clintons-plan-to-fight-for-environmental-and-climate-justice/

Quick Thoughts as the Putin-Trump Story Unfolds

The article linked below has an excellent rundown on where things stand (or did, as of a short while ago).

The take away?

(1). A direct connection between Putin and Trump is purely speculative at the moment, other than Trump's open invitation to Putin to meddle.

(2). "Russian state interests are likely intervening in an American election, in a way that divides the Democratic party and thus furthers Donald Trump’s electoral ambitions. The Kremlin, wittingly or not, serving as a kind of pro-Trump Super PAC, albeit one with access to hackers."

(3). "Trump is deeply committed to reorienting American foreign policy in a pro-Russian direction. He’s said that he’ll do that, repeatedly, and both his campaign and personal life give us every reason to believe that he’s absolutely serious."

"Given the power of the US presidency, Trump could go beyond merely altering American foreign policy: If he’s really serious about it, he could alter the very fundamental fabric of global politics, weakening core institutions like NATO that Russia hates. Hillary Clinton, a solid establishmentarian who’s hated by Russia, would do nothing of the kind."

I will add that I think calls of "treason" miss the point. Trump is effectively messaging to his voters. His voters value authoritarianism, NOT conservatism. As such, calls to hack Clinton are essentially a call to see her as vulnerable.

The rest of us, progressives, liberals and conservatives, that value geopolitical stability and the right to our nation's self-determination and sovereignty, must speak loudly and quickly to denounce Trump's aims more than even his tactics.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12271042/donald-trump-russia-putin-hack-explained

Why Booing Elizabeth Warren Matters

Elizabeth Warren

As I have said before, I am soooo relieved that Elizabeth Warren was not the VP pick.

Don't get me wrong.  Elizabeth Warren is fantastic.  She is the perfect combination of brilliant and compassionate and forceful.

In fact, that is exactly why I am glad she isn't the VP pick.

Chuck Schumer

We are going to get a majority of the Senate this Fall.  At least that is the plan.  When we do, Senator Chuck Schumer, from my own great state of New York, will likely be Senate Majority Leader.

If you want to talk about establishment Democratic Party, this is your man. You want to talk about support for fracking?  Here you go.  You want to talk ties to Wall Street?  Chuck Schumer is your guy.  

But with Warren and Sanders in the Senate, with the force of the Bernie movement behind them, they can lead a progressive bloc of senators to champion the causes most dear to the left.

Bernie Sanders has rallied a power base that has now pushed the Democratic platform to include a WWII-scale mobilization against climate change, calling for a price on carbon.  Will it be the cap and trade once supported by the party establisment, including Chuck Schumer?  Or will it be a carbon tax that is simple, straight forward and not prone to loop holes that benefit corporations?

Warren.  Here is a woman that has focused primarily on attacking unfair economic practices.  Up until this year, very little, other than a supportive nod, came from her on climate.  But now, the climate movement has managed to be heard more loudly, within the country and party, but, too, by the left, by Warren.  Yes.  We have a woman focused on economic justice beginning to truly incorporate climate justice into her paradigm.  Man, oh, man, do I want her in the Senate leading that progressive bloc.

But will she lead the progressive bloc?  Well, her power, and Sanders' power, depend on demonstrating that they have the power to lead the left.  Warren is known as a fundraiser extraordinaire.  That gives her great clout.  And Sanders?  Well he just ran a successful campaign, if you hadn't heard.

But what if they cannot demonstrate that they lead that left bloc?

It is NOW that the left must rally behind their leaders.  The left has entrusted them with power, for very good reason.  If they withdraw it now, all their efforts will be lost.  And the party establishment, in the form of Chuck Schumer, can look away.

Bernie Sanders

I was very glad to see Bernie Sanders manage the speech last night at the Democratic Convention.  It was a tough job to hold that power in the face of those ready to ditch it.

But he knows, and Warren knows that once you gain power in a party, you don't then tear the party apart and end with none.

Thank goodness 90% of Bernie supporters know this.  The 10%? It is up to us to make clear, we are not with them.

Power shifts and climate action

The left is pissed. Done accepting half efforts. We are spiraling ever faster to huge economic collapse and climate destruction. We have been sold a bill of goods over and over and the left just doesn’t want to take it anymore. Corporations keep calling the shots and lining their pockets by controlling who gets elected and the decisions they make. Hillary can’t be trusted. If she is building a grid, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. If she is putting up solar, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. These are not enough. Hillary needs to stop taking corporate dollars today. Sanders and Warren are selling out too. These are the calls from the left. But here is the thing. If we have any hope of weakening or ending corporatism, it will not be with Trump at our helm.

There is great precedent for an upwelling of democratic revolt being harnessed for grabbing power for totalitarian rule. (Arab Spring being a very recent example). Sanders did a very good job of forcing a shift without allowing himself to be used to destroy the vast coalitions we have for holding the Democratic Party together. If he had failed at that, we would have a fractured polity...the kind that cannot hold together to keep out someone like Trump. There are precedents for multiparty countries leaving power to a plurality that is far to the right. (Thinking the Nazi Party).

I think it is a very hopeful sign that Sanders was able to become so popular and use that to push the party platform, push Clinton left and increase the power of progressives within the party.

I am so relieved that Warren was not the VP pick, though.

She is becoming the most powerful Democrat in Washington, perhaps after Clinton, perhaps not. But most likely, her power within the Party has, or soon will, eclipse Schumer. He may end up Senate Majority Leader. But she will lead a powerful progressive voting block. She will not be impotent, tied to the VP's desk.

You know what worries me, always has? The progressives, like Warren, have never put climate at the top of the list. That's true of Sanders too. But, during this election, they have begun to really shift to bring that issue into their repertoire. Why? Well, you and me and every climate voter. And Senator Whitehouse. And the Pope. And COP21. And, yes, Obama. (And, of course, millions of others). You know, those half measures that the left doesn’t want to stand for anymore... The climate movement has worked hard for those measures, and they, in turn, have pressured the rest of the powerbrokers to respond and address climate.

Hillary Clinton is likely reading the politics exactly right to navigate all of the different political powers and pressures for getting climate action. And some of that has been in what the left dismisses as symbolic and temporary.

The progressives are finally putting climate further to the top. The moderates are working with, and I think glad to have the progressives building political will for the shift to the left. (I believe they are Democrats because they support a lot of the same ideals progressives do. And they are moderates because they are utterly pragmatic in achieving those ideals. They are very likely thrilled to have an upwelling of voices for progressive action. I know Obama asked again and again for people to demand climate action from him so he could deliver). The left is frustrated at exactly the moment that it may have actually achieved what was nearly impossible. They have pushed the progressive agenda further than it’s been in many decades. And they have done it without fracturing the Party. Not only that, the climate movement has pushed itself to greater prominence among the Progressives. We are on the verge of instituting the Clean Power Plan (all we need is to fill that Supreme Court seat). We are on the verge of upping the standards for transport and housing. We can have the grid that can make 100% carbon free energy a reality. And if we do this right, we can have a Congress that will deliver a carbon tax to President Clinton’s desk in the Oval Office.

How can a candidate say they are serious about climate while supporting fracking?

Clinton, and now Kaine along with her, listen to climate scientists and understand climate change is dire, or so they say. Kaine has said it on the Senate floor, Clinton has said it there and, as Secretary of State, made it a constant part of her agenda.

But how, how could two people SAY they understand climate is dire, but still support fracking? Yes, they say we need to regulate it heavily, but no amount of regulation can truly stop fugitive emissions, seismic activity and despoiled water.

That is a fair question.

The answer is complicated, and certainly open to interpretation.

Here is my answer.

Everyone, other than the Koch brothers, loves solar and wind. Great stuff. Even the obstructionist Republican Congress renewed subsidies for solar in December. It is a winner politically. With good reason. My own Congressman, Chris Gibson, has described it as “democratizing energy.” Add the near zero carbon emissions, and we are talking about a solution that has broad appeal.

Wind and solar are intermittent. The sun isn’t always shining everywhere and at all times that electricity is needed, nor is the wind always blowing. There are several potential solutions to this problem. (1) Use electricity only intermittently, (2) store the energy for later use, (3) move the energy from one place to another-transmission or (4) have another energy source that can be turned on and off to complement the solar and wind.

(1) Intermittent electricity usage is NOT an option, politically or economically. Anyone suggesting this will never get into power long enough to implement such a policy. Nor would any of us really want this if we stop to consider things like refrigeration and hospital needs. We can shift usage around throughout the day to better coordinate with production and it is easy to imagine an app for that. However, we certainly cannot shift all usage to coincide with production. (2) Storage is building. Tesla came out with its powerwall, electric vehicles may be able to be used for storage to then use later for our homes, water can be pumped upstream. Lots of different storage possibilities. None of which are yet fully developed and ready to complement hundreds of thousands of solar panels or wind turbines. We are getting there, but we are not there yet. (3) Transmission would be fantastic. Moving solar produced electricity from Arizona to Wisconsin would solve a lot of the challenges. However, our current grid is AC, which is inefficient and the electricity just would not get across country efficiently enough. A DC grid could be built, and that would work well. We don’t have that now.

(4) Another energy source that can be turned on and off easily is called dispatchable energy. The primary source of dispatchable energy we have available now is gas.

Because choices (1), (2) and (3) are currently limited, we have been relying on number (4). Gas. At the moment, and until we have fully ramped up (1), (2) and (3), we will rely on gas if we want to build renewables. Now let’s be clear. Gas sucks. Fugitive methane emissions, seismic activity and destruction of our fresh water sources is not a good thing.

What are our options? Well, we could (1) continue to complement renewables with gas until we have a grid and storage and shifting usage fully in place, (2) ditch renewables and build nuclear, or (3) continue to sort of do both.

If I were queen, I would build renewables with complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting as quickly as possible. I would end all gas, coal and oil for electricity production. But because we don’t have enough renewables or the necessary complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting in place to end all fossil fuels immediately, I would also build nuclear. Nuclear is baseload, which means it can go 24-7 without needed complementary gas or storage/transmission/usage shifting. It, too, has near zero carbon emissions.

But I am not queen. And most people on the left don’t like nuclear. And people on the right don’t like the cost of nuclear.

The next president isn’t going to be queen either. She will be president. Now, what has she proposed, given the realities we are facing, both physical and political?

She is proposing to build up (1) usage shifting, (2) storage and (3) transmission as much as possible. She is proposing building out solar and wind. But she knows that without building up nuclear, while ending coal, we are left with a real possibility that we can’t get the complementary grid, storage and usage shifting in place as quickly as we need. And the only way to ensure the lights and heat and refrigerators and hospital equipment stays on then…is gas.

I don’t like it. But when the political reality is that you cannot say the word “nuclear” aloud, and the voters do not appreciate the value of “national grid,” “innovative energy storage” and “smart grid,” you cannot ignore gas if you are going to build up solar and wind.

Thankfully, Hillary has not just accepted gas’ inevitability as a complement to renewables. Her policies push for heavily regulating fracking. That will drive up the cost of gas… and, perhaps, hopefully, make nuclear a little more likely to stay competitive, giving us more time to build up that grid, that storage and the usage shifting that will make solar and wind possible. Many climate activists are approaching Clinton-Kaine as “well, they aren’t Trump.” But the truth is that Hillary Clinton has been listening very very carefully to those with expertise. And she is crafting policies to move us as quickly as possible off of fossil fuels, while also recognizing that there are political limitations. Not the least of which is failure of even climate activists to fully appreciate the challenges of our transition. I am grateful that Hillary has plans for a national grid. I am grateful that she has plans for building out renewables. I am grateful that she has resisted calling for closure of nuclear plants. I am grateful that she is calling for heavy regulation of fracking. I am grateful she is navigating this in a way that will keep the lights on for us all, and most especially those who are most at risk of being left behind. And I am grateful she is listening to those who understand the complexities of energy policy and those who understand climate science. I wouldn’t do it the same as she is doing...but then, I am not as skilled as she is at navigating the world of politics and policy.

A White Woman’s Authority in the Classroom

School is out right now. Nonetheless, I can't help think about my students. Young and black. They come into my classroom to learn. I come into the classroom to teach.

But so much comes into the classroom with us. I am a white woman in a position of authority. What kinds of conversations must occur at home on days like today? "Be careful not to move in a way that sends a wrong signal." "Be wary of people in positions of authority, they hold so much power but do not understand us." Valid. Likely. At any rate, if I were black, I'd be sounding caution to my own children. I notice that my black male students, 14 and 15 years old, are more likely to not make eye contact with me after the highly publicized events. Head slightly down. And you know what is needed to learn? Trust. Daring to be wrong. Making mistakes. I work very hard to create an environment of trust. It's the bedrock of my teaching, I hope. Sometimes I think I am all the more threatening because I am asking them to trust me. And of course they cannot. Not in the context of all the horrific racism and abuse of authority outside our classroom. And so maybe I am all the more threatening because I am asking for something that would leave them much too vulnerable. Or perhaps I am just projecting. But it feels like the outside world fights me. Fights me and my students. And if all of this is coming into my classroom, what is coming into police interactions? The answers are in today's headlines. So what is a white woman to do? I cannot ignore racism. It is every teacher’s responsibility to teach values as well as ideas and thinking skills. It is every white person’s responsibility to own up to our privilege. I cannot just ignore it in my classroom. I cannot pretend it does not exist and demand trust. That is unfair and unrealistic. When I have students again in September, there will be occasion to talk about racism. I am a mere biology teacher, but racism will still be in our classroom with us. Every year, racism finds its most obvious moment in the use of the word “nigger.” God, I hate that word. I hate it. I tell my students, that word is not tolerated in my classroom. They say, “but it is a friendly word, I mean it as a friend.” I will explain that, of course, they may use that word with each other, as a way to reclaim the word, to disempower it. But I cannot use the word, nor, as a white woman in a position of authority, can I tolerate it in my classroom, because it is a word of hatred. Invariably, a student will ask why I care, since I am white. And I will turn to them and explain that I care because I am a human being. And that the word "nigger" is the last word many a human being has heard before they were strung up on a tree and hanged or burnt alive or dragged behind a car until they were dead. The last word they heard as they yearned for their mother. Boys like my own son, surrounded by hatred with the word "nigger" ringing in their ears, desperately wishing only to be in their mother's arms. How can I, a mother, a human being, not care? Invariably. Every year, I must explain why I will not tolerate words of hate in my room. Sometimes, I cry. Sometimes, I am indignant. But every year, this conversation must happen. Last year, the conversation ended with the story of Emmet Till. A beautiful shining boy, just like my own. I tell them I cannot bear to share the photo of his mutilated body. I am not as brave as his mother. But I can share with them instead the beautiful boy that she loved, as I love my own son. Boys who should never face the word “nigger” alone and afraid.

Emmett Till

My Son

Various Mechanisms for Pricing Carbon

[Edited to add: I am reposting this note. It seems that more people are talking about a carbon tax than at any time before. The climate movement has made great headway in raising the topic, especially through Bernie Sanders, on the carbon tax. So...here are some nuts and bolts on carbon pricing.]

Now that the science is settled, and the so-called climate deniers are in retreat, the battlefront moves to enacting the best policies to cut emissions. It is essential that all climate activists become versed in the various policies. You can be sure that the fossil fuel interests will fight for mechanisms that cut emissions the least. It is up to us to educate each other and the general public on which mechanisms are the best policies and will cut emissions the most. Toward that end, I would like to open up discussion for the most basic of questions about the policies. I am no expert in energy policy or carbon emissions. But I have been reading up on it. I hope to learn from everyone else as much as I hope to share what little I know. The following is pulled from my own presentation on the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend. Please make no mistake, I favor it and the following clearly is presented with that favor in mind. I am not closed to the other mechanisms and I hope that whatever discussion we have, it remains open-minded. 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. These all can be designed to impact fracking as well as traditional drilling and mining and impact the use of all products that depend upon fossil fuel use. • The Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend (RNCFAD). 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 in equal amounts. 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 earners pay out more in the fee than they receive back in the dividend. Emissions are projected to drop 33% in ten years solely due to the RNCFAD and 52% in twenty years. Projections also show that 2.1 million jobs will be added in 10 years and 2.8 million jobs in 20 years. The economy will grow as a direct result of the RNCFAD. ➢ 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). • Cap and Trade. 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. • Congressman VanHollen Bill (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 RNCFAD, 100% of the proceeds of the auctions are returned to each person. The advantage of this bill over the RNCFAD 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. • The Tax Swap. Favored by many conservatives, this bill places a fee on all carbon emitting products and is revenue neutral just like the RNCFAD. 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%. Criticized for exporting usage (no border adjustment) • Revenue Raising Approaches. The Boxer-Sanders bill rebated 60% to citizens, retaining 40% for subsidies and deficit reduction.Since my original post of this, other pricing bills have been proffered. Notably:Congressman Delaney, of Maryland's Tax Pollution, Not Profits Act. This is a carbon tax swap-dividend hybrid. It is not 100% revenue neutral. It retains 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 recieving more. The primary return of the funds is 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.)

Climate Policy and the Democratic Party Platform

[This Note was published in edited form as a guest blog on Greg Laden’s blog at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2... ] It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon…for VP and for policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate, and carbon cutting policy, is part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What two or three or four policy platforms will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

It comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders has made it plain that he will allow nuclear licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. This isn’t quite the reality of allowing licenses to lapse. The reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance ends up economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won't be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017's maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it's done. You can't just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means that we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn't support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

The Nuclear Option

I will start with a little context. I grew up about five miles from Indian Point nuclear plant. My parents and their friends were protesting Indian Point when I was 9. I remember the leakage scares, the meltdown worries and heard about every event. As I made my way through my biology and law degrees, nothing I encountered was in conflict with that understanding. In fact, as to Indian Point, I am quite sure that the failures of oversight are dangerous and that Indian Point very likely should be shut down.

However, I am also keenly aware of carbon emissions. And the impacts, climate and otherwise, of gas, oil and coal. By 2030, we will have locked in 2C warming. That will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of living creatures, many of whom will be human. There will be great starvation, thirst and war, as well as the destruction wrought by sea level rise and extreme weather events. On top of that, coal, oil and gas kill many through their own wastes and extraction. The sheer numbers far outweigh the numbers of fatalities from every nuclear accident totaled.

My first looks at climate change made it appear that the solution was simple: 100% renewables. In fact, Jacobsen out of Stanford says we can get to 100% renewables.

Unfortunately, he does not represent 97% of energy experts. He doesn't even represent a plurality of experts. Many of his colleagues question his conclusions as overly optimistic. He may be right, but there is a chance he is wrong. If he is, our futures may require us to rely on something other than renewables. That's either fossil fuels or nuclear. Even more unfortunately, when we close down a nuclear plant, the decommissioning is permanent. So if we must change our minds, we will have to build from scratch, requiring time we don't have.

Let's say we assume Jacobsen is right though.

Even still, we are facing a serious issue in the transition. Every time we close a nuclear plant in the northeast, we replace it with gas. Percent for percent. In real time. Gas is reported as lower emissions. However, it is increasingly apparent that the fugitive methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from fracking is under reported. Fracking has other problems too--more destruction of water than ever seen from Indian Point...by any measure.

So we are facing a very difficult set of choices.

I believe we are facing three separate questions. First, should we shutter currently running plants, if they are to be replaced by gas (which is what is happening, since gas is so cheap). Indian Point is rife with issues. However, Fitzpatrick is not. Yet it is being closed because the owners cannot afford regular maintenance work on it. Why not? Gas is so artificially cheap, it's driven down the cost of electricity. The choice we are making is to frack rather than continue to use an already existing nuclear plant. Fracking-with it's wanton destruction of water and land, fugitive emissions and weighty carbon footprint.

The second question is whether we want to invest in new plants. The plants that we could build now would be vast improvements over Indian Point. But the expense, and current unsolved issues make this a question that reasonable people could easily differ on.

The third question is whether we should invest in developing gen 4 reactors. If we develop fast reactors, we could use old stockpiled waste as fuel, killing two birds with one stone. Fast reactors exist in the world. The development questions are ones of developing commercially viable fast reactors. Likely a matter of investment rather than chance.

We face a stark reality. Nuclear is nearly carbon emissions free. Nuclear has had far fewer casualties (even problematic ones like Indian Point) than gas oil and coal, even before accounting for climate change.

At the very least, we must take seriously the question of how we will ensure shuttered nuclear is not replaced with gas.

How a Climate Voter Can Choose Hillary

[NOTE: this is a repost and collection of various thoughts I've had over the past weeks that I want to collect in one spot. It is not an invitation for Hillary slamming or Bernie slamming. It is simply an explanation of how I came to my decision. I believe that support of Bernie is fully rational and I will happily and proudly support either of them in the general election.]

Many of my climate activist allies think all serious climate activists support Bernie. (I do challenge that idea given a recent Quinnipiac poll that found 11% of dems rank climate as their number one issue and 66% of those support Bernie and 30% support Hillary).

But given the basic presumption that Bernie is better on climate, why do I think Hillary may actually be the better candidate on climate?

(1) Soul versus Trenches I agree that Bernie and Bernie's supporters are looking to redefine the soul of the party.

And I agree that that is worthy. And important.

But I disagree that it is all that is important.

Climate action must be NOW. Not in five years, not in ten. And it must occur in our current political system, not the one we may be able to create in 4 or 8 years.

And so, experience and skill and detail matter within our current political system.

Bernie has a clear vision that Hillary lacks. A vision beyond the horizon. But Hillary has a command of the horizon that has few equals. Beyond the horizon lies the soul of the party. But the climate relies before our horizon.

I think Hillary has the kind of natural executive skill that Obama has, but with a whole lot more experience than he had to start. Obama has managed to accomplish way more than a lesser skilled executive could accomplish. And the results may be the difference between 4C and 2.5C.

I see the weaknesses in Hillary as the other side of the coin of her strengths. She is ready for the trenches. She is prepared for the long slog. And that means she may not look beyond the horizon. Of course, it also means she is ready for the slog. I will give you a quick example. In her climate plan, buried deep, is a vague discussion of creating carbon markets to coordinate internationally with Canada and Mexico. Few recognize that she is talking about carbon pricing because she has buried it deep in her climate policy. That wasn't an accident. And it's not that she doesn't really want to price carbon. It's that she doesn't want to wave a red flag for the GOP bull that she is preparing for because she knows that bull and she knows how to fight it.

Less soul. More trenches. [Edited on April 14 to add the following: I think Hillary is beginning to incorporate climate into a broader vision, perhaps one that sees further to the horizon. Her new plan ties climate into the issues she has most consistently addressed. From her most recent plans: “[s]imply put, this is environmental racism. And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. “ She goes on to explain how she intends to ensure that climate mitigation and adaptation and resilience all address climate’s disproportionate impact on minorities. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...

(2) Fracking, Nuclear and Keeping the Working and Poor Classes' Lights and Heat On.

Bernie wants to ban fracking. Sounds great. Fracking is destroying our water, leaking methane, causing seismic activity and earthquakes and produces carbon dioxide when burned. He does acknowledge that in the absence of legislative action, he will have to regulate fracking heavily. That is precisely Hillary's policy stance--heavily regulate fracking.

What's more is that Bernie wants to shutter nuclear plants. That is understandable. Nuclear's history is fraught with poor oversight and weak public support. However, every time we shutter a nuclear plant, it seems we replace it with gas. Moreover, once we shutter a nuclear plant, it cannot be simply refurbished and reopened. So if there's uncertainty about getting to 100% renewables , closing nuclear is a gamble even in the long term. It makes much more sense to first replace gas, coal and oil with renewables and then close down nuclear as it too can be replaced by renewables. (This is actually a simplification, since there are also issues of distributed energy versus centralized energy, but the gist of it remains--shuttering nuclear today results in more gas).

So let's say Bernie CAN ban both fracking and nuclear as he intends. If the renewables aren't up and running yet, then that simply means lights out. Heat off. For whom? The poor and working classes. The wealthy will happily make do with the solar and wind that we've gotten up and running.

Bernie will NEVER do that--it would devastate the people he cares most about. So...until we can get renewables 100% up and running, he faces a choice--gas, coal (once you shutter gas, it can easily be returned to coal), oil or lights out. He will be left with the same policy that Hillary is working toward.

(3) Entrenchment and Being Owned by the Establishment.

Hillary is completely tied to the Democratic establishment. She has ties.

That is true. But not all bad. The establishment includes Civil Rights activists from decades ago. Mothers of dead black children from today. Groups dedicated to women's reproductive freedom. Large environmental groups. Unions. I don't agree with everything the "establishment" stands for. I don't want Wall Street calling shots. But I don't want to forgo leveraging WalMart's consumer power to buy solar either. Or Unilever's interest in driving climate action. We have nearly 319 million people in this country and 7.2 billion people on the planet. It will take a lot to move everyone in the right direction. And THAT is precisely what we must do. Leveraging power to do that is not a bad thing.

(4) Political Will and the Revolution Bernie is inspiring and engaging. And it is about time we hear voices from the left. Every one of us--including private citizens and politicians--need to move left. But that is the POLITY that must move left and be engaged. Whether Bernie is POTUS or Hillary is, we will need to show up on Election Day and every day after that. Demanding more. More of Bernie (whose goal does not go as far as that of O'Malley, btw). More of Hillary. More of our legislators. More of ourselves.

[Here, btw, is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

"Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets." https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/ ]

My favorite story about Gandhi--"With Your Help"

The following excerpt is from the book Patience, by Eknath Easwaran.

“Freeing yourself from instinctive, reflex reactions will enrich all your relationships – even with those who oppose you. When you are kind to a foe, he ceases to be a foe. In time, he may even turn out to be a friend.

“Gandhi’s life was filled with such relationships. Once, during Gandhi’s campaigns for the rights of Indians in South Africa, he came before the head of the Transvaal government, General Jan Smuts. Gandhi had already developed the essentials of his later style, and it is easy to picture him sitting before this able Boer soldier and informing him quietly: ‘I want you to know I intend to fight against your government.’

“Smuts must have thought he was hearing things. ‘You have come here to tell me that?’ he laughs. ‘Is there anything more you want to say?’

“‘Yes,’ says Gandhi. ‘I am going to win.’

“Smuts was astonished. ‘Well,’ he says at last, ‘and how are you going to do this?’

“Gandhi smiles, ‘With your help.’

“Years later Smuts admitted, not without humor, that this is exactly what Gandhi did.

By his courage and by the inward toughness that allowed him to stick it out without yielding and without retaliation, Gandhi managed at last to win the general’s respect and friendship. Indeed, in 1939, on Gandhi’s seventieth birthday, Smuts returned a pair of sandals that Gandhi had made while imprisoned in South Africa and had given to him in 1914. ‘I have worn these sandals for many a summer since then,’ Smuts said, ‘even though I may feel that I am not worthy to stand in the shoes of so great a man.'”

http://www.easwaran.org/blog/2013/09/20/gandhis-sandals/