Hillary Clinton Is Talking Climate-Do We Hear Her?

There continues to be a sense that while Hillary Clinton does have comprehensive plans for clean energy, she isn’t talking about climate change enough.  A good friend of mine expressed concern that she doesn’t really prioritize it.  He said “I feel invisible.”  Perhaps this reflected a sense that she isn’t really listening and doesn’t really hear how bad it is, how important it is.

The political process and the wrangling can make us all feel invisible.  And, certainly, Hillary Clinton has a lot on her plate.  Climate sometimes seems to get lost.  Without a doubt, moderators are not raising it.  Demoralizing, really.

However, while busy addressing Trump, she is still managing to raise climate.  Her use of climate as a wedge issue in the first presidential debate was fantastic.  Of course, she was busy in that debate making sure Trump was on the defensive in many areas.  Seeing climate as one was very gratifying.
 
But she is also raising climate in ads like the one above and in stump speeches. NPR has analyzed and annotated Clinton’s stump speeches, based on a typical one.  This is the speech she regularly gives, with subtle changes for each occasion.

I have excerpted here the portions relevant to climate change:

“We're going to make the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II.

Infrastructure jobs like those here at the port. Our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports, they need work and there are millions of jobs to be done. And in addition to what you can see, what about our water systems, our sewer systems? We need a new modern electric grid to be able to take in clean, renewable energy that can then move us toward that future we seek.

I have a plan to install a half a billion solar panels by the end of my first term. And enough clean energy to power every home in America by the end of my second term. And I want young people especially to be part of this, to be in science, technology, engineering, manufacturing, creating this future that will determine the quality of your lives and the competitiveness of our economy.

...

Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It's real. It's wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week's hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine. But this is not the last one that's going to hit Florida, given what's happening in the climate. Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region. Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security. The next president will have to work with communities like Tampa's to prepare for future storms.

When I'm in the Oval Office, I'm going to work with local leaders to make smart investments in infrastructure to help protect regions from flooding and other effects of climate change. I'm going to continue to continue to work on the international and national level to try to turn the clock back, to stabilize and reduce emissions even more, to try to gain more time. But we're going to have to begin working immediately on mitigation and resilience and prevention as well.

And what about Donald Trump? Well, he doesn't even believe in climate change. He says it's a hoax invented by the Chinese. And he says, 'You can't get hurt with extreme weather.' Now, this is the same guy who at one of his golf courses in some coastal place has demanded that a seawall be built to protect his golf course from rising tides. So it's all fine if it affects Donald, but if it affects the rest of humanity, he could care less. If it affects people to lose their homes or their businesses that took a lifetime to build, it doesn't matter to him. When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified to be our president.”

Hillary Clinton has a goal of cutting emissions 80% by 2050.  The same goal of 80% by 2050 that Bernie Sanders had.  Certainly, her plans do not go far enough.  But 80% by 2050 is a strong goal.

Hillary Clinton has policy plans to develop clean energy, to build a new grid to support that clean energy, to ensure that there is climate justice in building resilience to withstand climate impacts and in accessing the opportunities for jobs building a green economy, to support coal communities as they transition to carbon free economics, to increase building efficiency, to electrify our automobile fleet… (Also see David Roberts' great summary of Hillary Clinton's climate policies here.)

Hillary Clinton has created a transition team that includes co-chair Jennifer Granholm, who has long advocated for clean energy challenge grants and is an aggressive advocate for building a green economy.  The team also includes Neera Tanden, the president of Center for American Progress (CAP).  The same CAP that created and sponsors Think Progress and Climate Progress, with its own Joe Romm.  These women answer to John Podesta, founder of CAP and head of Clinton's campaign. (As David Roberts explains, he was a driver for aggressive climate action in the Obama second term.)

And she is talking about climate change, even amidst a busy campaign understandably focusing on the threat that is Donald Trump.

Perhaps we are not invisible; perhaps she is hearing the climate scientists and energy policy experts and climate journalists and activists.

Perhaps it is that we are not hearing her.

I suspect that this might be related to "the gap" described by Ezra Klein:

"Given where both candidates began, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders proved the more effective talker. His speeches attracted larger audiences, his debate performances led to big gains in the polls, his sound bites went more viral on Facebook.

Yet Clinton proved the more effective listener — and, particularly, the more effective coalition builder. On the eve of the California primary, 208 members of Congress had endorsed Clinton, and only eight had endorsed Sanders. 'This was a lot of relationships,' says Verveer.  'She’s been in public life for 30 years. Over those 30 years, she has met a lot of those people, stayed in touch with them, treated them decently, campaigned for them. You can’t do this overnight.'

One way of reading the Democratic primary is that it pitted an unusually pure male leadership style against an unusually pure female leadership style. Sanders is a great talker and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is a great relationship builder and a poor talker. In this case — the first time at the presidential level — the female leadership style won."

We in the climate movement are angry at the greed and mendacity of the fossil fuel interests.  We are scared and worried for our children's futures.  Quite simply, we want to hear outrage from Clinton.  And we don't.  This leaves many feeling unheard.  Feeling "invisible."

But, perhaps we are very much heard.  Perhaps she is listening.  Perhaps she is developing the right relationships for action.  Perhaps we just don't have an ear trained to hear her.

If you are scared of a zero carbon economy, you are confusing "carbon free" with "climate change."

Bill McKibben:   "[I]f our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

... 

'Managed decline' means we don’t have to grind everything to a halt tomorrow; we can keep extracting fuel from existing oil wells and gas fields and coal mines. But we can’t go explore for new ones. We can’t even develop the ones we already know about, the ones right next to our current projects." 

Action on climate does not mean living in caves.

Action on climate does not mean hunting around in the dark.

Action on climate does not mean living without power.

That's what happens if we DON'T act on climate.

World War II Scale Mobilization

Climate change is here and it is urgent.  Urgent as in really really really dire.  As I discussed in a previous post, IPCC projections show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Bill McKibben wrote an excellent piece last month laying out what we need to do to get to zero emissions...a World War II Scale Mobilization to fight climate change.  He did a great job explaining that winning a war is about building weaponry and infrastructure as much as it is about fighting.  He discussed how much needs to be built to fight climate change.  (While I do not completely agree with his reliance on Jacobsen's work to such a degree, his point is well made and whether we rely 100% on renewables or to some lesser extent, we have a lot to get done in a short amount of time).

Then he turned to a discussion of what a World War II Scale Mobilization looks like.  This was excellent.  We must all take a long hard look at what that really means.  Easy to say the phrase and give an air of meaning business, but getting down to brass tacks means figuring out precisely what that entails.

"Turning out more solar panels and wind turbines may not sound like warfare, but it’s exactly what won World War II: not just massive invasions and pitched tank battles and ferocious aerial bombardments, but the wholesale industrial retooling that was needed to build weapons and supply troops on a previously unprecedented scale. Defeating the Nazis required more than brave soldiers. It required building big factories, and building them really, really fast...

According to the conventional view of World War II, American business made all this happen simply because it rolled up its sleeves and went to war. As is so often the case, however, the conventional view is mostly wrong. Yes, there are endless newsreels from the era of patriotic businessmen unrolling blueprints and switching on assembly lines—but that’s largely because those businessmen paid for the films. Their PR departments also put out their own radio serials with titles like “Victory Is Their Business,” and “War of Enterprise,” and published endless newspaper ads boasting of their own patriotism. In reality, many of America’s captains of industry didn’t want much to do with the war until they were dragooned into it."

McKibben goes on to explain that "dragooned into it" meant government agencies directing industry action:

 “'It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,' says Wilson. 'And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.' The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to 'robust profit controls,' which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons. In many cases, federal authorities purposely set up competition between public operations and private factories: The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard built submarines, but so did Electric Boat of Groton, Connecticut. 'They were both quite impressive and productive,' Wilson says."

Let's tease that apart.  "Public capital built most of the stuff... [C]ompanies made money."  Why exactly did "America's industrial tycoons...accept 'robust profit controls'"?  Well, the answer might be in what those industrial tycoons got in return.  Andre Tartare, with Bloomberg:

"To win WWII, the U.S. economy had to be re-tooled to churn out airplanes and tanks alongside (or, in lieu) of washing machines and cars, while at the same time developing new technologies, such as the atomic bomb. Government spending — often in the form of cost-plus contracts to the risk-averse private companies operating the factories and mines — peaked at nearly 43 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 1943 and 1944." 

A simple definition of cost-plus contract:  "A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract... This contract type permits contracting for efforts that might otherwise present too great a risk to contractors.."  That's right.  The corporation takes none of the risk in research and development.  Guaranteed profit.  No risk.  Government takes the risk.

Military and defense contractors.  Gun manufacturers.  Airplane and auto manufacturers. Profiteering?  Maybe not in the sense of making exorbitant profit margins. But they weren't treated too shabbily.  No risk R&D and guaranteed profit is nice.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think it was a bad move.  We needed to fight a war.  And win a war.  And if IBM and Boeing and others profited by it unfairly, well, such is life.  We had a war to fight and win.

And we need to fight a war now.  We have loads of solar panels and wind turbines to churn out.  We have nuclear R&D to accomplish.  We have a HVDC grid to build.  We have smart grid technology to develop.  We have gardens to grow.  We have replacement for concrete to discover.  We have planes, trains and automobiles to build that move without fossil fuels.  We have energy storage R&D to do. We have to figure out how to accomplish widespread negative emissions.  We have sea level rise to address.  We have extreme weather to defend against.  We have a war to fight.  And we will need to do whatever it takes to win that war.

And here is my point:  it WILL involve decisions that people on the left do not necessarily like.  I don't like the idea of cost-plus contracts to GM or Boeing or Microsoft or, worse, Exxon Mobil.  But what if they mean we can win the war?

If we are going to talk about WWII scale mobilization, we had better be ready to be exceedingly pragmatic. When we talk about WWII scale mobilization, we are talking about TOUGH choices.  Not just for someone like Mitch McConnell or Jim Inhofe.  Not just for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Tough choices for us all.

I propose that those choices be faced with the guiding principle that cutting emissions and preserving a livable world must take higher priority than retribution, ideology or righteousness.  Bill McKibben is absolutely right.  We CAN get to zero emissions by 2035 or 2050.  But no one should think it will come lightly or easily.

Informed Decisions in a Changing Climate

Can you imagine living through Hurricane Katrina?

As a white woman from the northeastern U.S., I believed that I understood that racism exists, that I have advantages that others do not and that racism matters.

Then, I arrived in New Orleans in August '89 to begin law school.  I drove into the city with a truck full of my possessions.  Ten minutes after crossing into the city, before finding the University, I stopped at a local restaurant. I walked in.  And what I saw stunned me.

There were about ten men working there.  One white man, the rest black men.  The white man was the manager.  And the black men were his subordinates.

The heat was oppressive.  The humidity like nothing I had ever experienced before.  A heavy pall. There was a dull and vague acceptance of a crappy job, oppressive humidity and unquestioned separation of race.  There was a hopelessness in the men's eyes.  No eye contact.  Just "yes, missus" from bowed heads.

I shook off the experience, thinking I was reading more into it than existed.  Perhaps I was just projecting my 1960's preconceived notions.

However, the city never felt like part of the same country I grew up in. Police were corrupt. Government was corrupt. At a level I had never seen before. I watched police officers buy beer while on duty, get into their patrol car, open up and drive off. It was not a good plan to get pulled over by state troopers if you were young and female. That was not speculation. That was reality. The crime rate was huge. Theft, murder, drugs. The animal shelter was so poorly funded that animals' cages were never cleaned. Strays ran rampant. And the homeless children. Boys that had bottle caps in their sneakers and tapped for money. Living on the streets. The interstate between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is known as cancer alley because of the high rate of pollutant-driven cancers.

And, of course, there were poorly maintained levees.

I graduated from law school in May 1992 and moved on.  I gave New Orleans only passing thoughts until August 2005.  And then, along with the rest of the nation and world, looked on in horror as Hurricane Katrina arrived, the most impoverished and disempowered citizens failed to evacuate, the levee failed, Bush's FEMA failed, and the USA looked like a country from the developing world.

Hurricane Katrina floods Canal St.

Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

Poverty, race, corruption and lack of preparation converged to create horror and suffering.  Rapes and looting and terror-filled nights ensued.

The wealthier folks got out.  But even they did not get off scot-free.  Many people never returned to rebuild their homes and their businesses.  New Orleans' recovery was anemic and slow.

The losses were overwhelming.  "An estimated 1,833 people died in the hurricane and the flooding that followed in late August 2005, and millions of others were left homeless along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans.

Katrina was the most destructive storm to strike the United States and the costliest storm in U.S. history, causing $108 billion in damage,"

Many of those that lived through this were determined to learn from the experience.  This is not something you want to struggle through a second time.

Here is the story of one couple.  They were fortunate in that they were privileged enough to own their own their own home and business and to escape the worst parts of Katrina:

Julie Hebert was a newlywed when, 38 years ago, she moved to her husband's native Chalmette. They built a life and a business together. Then Katrina made landfall. Like much of Chalmette, the Hebert family's home and business were left in ruin.

They fled to Houston, staying three months or so. When they decided to return to Louisiana, they did their research, asking neighbors around prospective homes for the neighborhood's flood history.

The couple settled on a small subdivision in Denham Springs, near Interstate 12. The main road leading to the subdivision has two low spots where water typically pools during heavy rain, she said, occasionally making it impassible. But neighbors told them water had never flooded homes there.

"It wasn't like we bought carelessly," Hebert, 56, said Monday from her daughter's home in nearby Walker.

The Heberts were sensible.  Making choices to avoid the same kind of devastation based on all the information they could garner.

There is just one problem.

They asked the neighbors.  Like most of America, the neighbors were basing their information on past experience.  That is reasonable.  Except that most of America, and these neighbors, and the local planners, were ignoring significant information.  That is, they were ignoring the warnings of climate scientists.

What happened next in this story demonstrates that while climate change impacts the poor and disempowered most powerfully, it leaves out no one.

In August, 2016, it started to rain in Denham Springs.  A lot.  Meteorologists' descriptions range from a one-in-a five hundred year flood to a one-in-a thousand year flood.

When the rain intensified Thursday into Friday, Hebert and her husband figured they'd have to stay home for a day or two until water retreated from the main road.

"We had groceries in the house (and) the electricity didn't go off," she said. "We were fine on supplies."

But as Saturday progressed, Hebert noticed water from a backyard pond started marching toward her house.

Hebert started packing, relying on her Katrina experience while reminding herself, "it doesn't flood here."

The water continued rising up to the back door, then up the front yard and into the garage. They gathered more things, and their pets, and waded through the water to join neighbors waiting for a boat.

2016 Flooding in Southeast Louisana Rescue

Who could have predicted that this area is at increased risk of flooding?  Certainly not the neighbors.  And no one could have predicted this storm in this spot.

But, the scientists have been saying that the storms will come with increasing frequency and intensity.  And, in fact, the storms have been doing just that.  Tangipahoa Parish has seen two one-in-five hundred year storms in five months.

If we don't listen to the scientists, and take account of the changes they say are coming, we can't make good decisions.  We may have limited options in many cases, but, certainly, planning for and reacting to floods like these requires knowing what we are up against.  Julie Hebert had resources and tried to make good decisions.  But neither she nor her community heard the recommendations of the most credible experts:  climate scientists.  And now, she has lost everything.  AGAIN.

Climate change is going to challenge all of us.  The disempowered will face the worst suffering.  The lack of infrastructure, the corruption, the systemic disregard for people create real life horrors.  We saw it in Katrina on our very own shores.  We see it in Syria in the faces of children awash in a sea of bombs and scarce resources.

Omran Daqneesh Pulled from Aleppo Bomb Ruins

We must frame our climate solutions to include building up climate resiliency for people who do not have the resources to do so for themselves.

But, too, we must insist that those with resources get the information they need to make good decisions.  For those that can rebuild, they must hear that the past weather, by itself, is not predictive of the future weather in a changing climate.  Instead, we must factor in the projections from the scientists.

Many just like the Heberts are stepping into the future blind folded.  We must take the blinders off, look around, and make the best decisions we can.  And use those resources to protect not only ourselves, but also those without the resources to protect themselves.

Clinton's Transition Team, Jennifer Granholm and Listening to the Experts

Clinton and Granholm

I was contacted by text with "Bad news...  Clinton appointed Ken Salazar as the head of her transition team.  BETRAYAL." (paraphrased down to the point).

Now there is one thing I have learned watching these races.  Stop and read.

Ken Salazar?  Well, time to go back and re-read the details.  UGH.  Quoted as saying that fracking has no harmful impact on the environment as recently as 2014.  That is ridiculous.  Pants on fire kinda statement.  But, on the other hand, made decisions to regulate fossil fuel extraction in national parks.  Advocate for public lands.  Okay.  Mixed bag.

The second thing I have learned is to stop and think.  What does the Salazar appointment mean?  Well, it isn't a surprise.  Clinton has been clear, she sees gas as a bridge fuel.  Not how I see it. I see it as something that's got to end ASAP. But, whether you view it like I do, or you view it like she does, we have to deal with the reality that we must build the grid, storage and carbon free energy before we can end gas, oil and coal. And to do that, we must see market changes that drive that change.  Imagine for the moment that we banned gas today. Today. No more gas. What would happen? Coal would make a comeback. Coal is dead because of gas. (In part, as orchestrated by Beyond Coal, a joint venture of Sierra Club and Michael Bloomberg). And it is easy to convert a gas power station back to a coal power station.

Is she planning on supporting the construction of that grid, storage and carbon free energy? Yes. Her end horizon for gas is different than mine. But either way, the initial steps are the same.  Her plans are not enough. But, then, neither was Sanders’, and the climate movement didn't even look at O'Malley. Her plans DO include many of the first steps an executive can make in the face of an obstructionist Congress, however.

But here is the other thing to consider.  One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she pulls together lots of different people.  Gets all the vested interests to the table to talk and figure out how to move forward.  Bill McKibben's recent piece makes it clear that current industry must be brought to the table. (By force or by invitation, whichever works.  He relates how it was current industry that was coerced to mobilize to fight WWII, and then permitted to take credit for their work.)

So, I asked myself, who else is at this table?  This Vox piece tells us the big names.  And this piece from Politico talks about the huge list of climate and energy policy experts advising Clinton.  Wow.  A lot of people involved here besides Salazar.  Context is everything.

Here is one of the five top people on the transition team:  Jennifer Granholm.  Former governor of Michigan.  A quick google gave me this excellent 2013 Ted Talk, in which Granholm explains why she advocates challenge grants to the states to bypass congressional gridlock and motivate all states to work for clean energy solutions.

Where have I seen challenge grants to get states to act on climate before?  Oh, right...Hillary Clinton's Clean Energy Challenge:

"Hillary Clinton will launch a Clean Energy Challenge that forms a new partnership with states, cities, and rural communities that are ready to lead on clean energy. She will outline this Challenge in detail in the coming weeks, and it will include:

1. Climate Action Competition: Competitive grants and other market-based incentives to empower states to exceed federal carbon pollution standards and accelerate clean energy deployment.
2. Solar X-Prize: Awards for communities that successfully cut the red tape that slows rooftop solar installation times and increases costs for businesses and consumers."

 Fortunately, the Clean Energy Challenge is but one of a host of climate solutions plans that Hillary Clinton is advocating.  It might be reasonable to infer that they all find their genesis in people like Granholm.  Hillary Clinton LISTENS to the experts.  All of them.  Yes, Ken Salazar is there.  And so is Jennifer Granholm, along with a virtual army of other folks.  All at the table.  And in her Climate Map/War Room. (“'Hillary’s been talking about creating a climate war room in the White House,' Podesta said, then correcting himself that he meant to say climate map room. 'To be able to see where effects are taking place, to keep it real time, to use the technologies that are available, to try to imagine what is happening in the natural world and what the impact of that is going to be on the economy and the society.'”)

Our job?  We need to be sure we are at the table too, by voting on the basis of climate solutions, by speaking out on climate solutions and by supporting those with climate solutions.  Because it is clear, Clinton is listening.

Scientific Consensus, the IPCC and Just How Bad It Really Is

Here is a great graphic showing possible pathways we can take. It shows how soon we start emissions cuts will determine the rate at which we must get to zero emissions and how much ultimate warming we will see.

This graphic demonstrates the projections made within consensus science, including the IPCC projections.  These IPCC projections are terrifying, but show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Cutting edge, newer projections, are generally more dire than this.  Here are some examples of news stories that paint an even more dire picture: http://theconversation.com/we-have-almost-certainly-blown-the-1-5-degree-global-warming-target-63720 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize?CMP=share_btn_fb

IPCC projections are unusual in science, as a self-conscious attempt to sum up the consensus. Normally, in science, consensus simply emerges from the literature over long periods of time.  Given we don't have long periods of time, the IPCC attempts to move that forward more quickly. 

Faced with these contradictions, the media and the polity generally assume the more recent studies are the better or more accepted science.  However, in science, it usually works in reverse.  The newest studies have yet to be vetted and require more time for attempts to confirm or rebut their conclusions.  In the case of climate change, we don't have that kind of time.  Moreover, new data is available on a daily basis, adding weight to the newer studies.  On top of that, the IPCC often is suspected of slanting toward the more conservative, more palatable, less scary conclusions as a matter of policy.

So, what is a climate concerned citizen to do?

It is still very important to stay grounded in scientific process. Newer, cutting edge projections do not have the benefit of as much vetting by the scientific community. One of the reasons science is so trustworthy is that vetting process. So while we should keep an eye on the newer projections, we cannot dismiss what scientists have supported en masse already.

This is my take.  The scientists MUST continue to pursue the scientific process.  That means, leaning heavily on the consensus and looking to the cutting edge with skepticism.  But looking to challenge and confirm or rebut it.

The activists, the politicians, the polity, on the other hand, has this:  the reality is that whatever the scientists express differences on, they ALL agree on that we must cut carbon today by ending infrastructure that supports a carbon economy and we must do it as quickly as we can muster.

So a climate concerned citizen must must must continue to work on the certainty that we must cut carbon and leave the uncertainties to the scientists.

This is challenging because politicians want to know how much time we have.  This is challenging because the uncertainties leave those without science literacy think scientists don't know what they are doing and climate activists are not reading the right studies.  This is challenging because none of us want to face the reality that things are really really dire.  This is challenging because good messaging may seem out of touch with the reality, particularly when the reality is uncertain.  This is challenging because the initial steps we can take are dwarfed by the enormity of what we must accomplish.

This is challenging.

But, then, no one said this was easy.

I, for one, will write another letter to the editor, hang dry another load of laundry, replace another incandescent bulb, plan my next year's teaching and plan for my EV purchase this Winter.

Resiliency in Facing Climate Change

People's Climate March September 21, 2014

If you google "define resiliency," Google gives you this:

Resilience (noun) or Resiliency (noun) Able to recover quickly from misfortune; able to return to original form after being bent, compressed, or stretched out of shape. A human ability to recover quickly from disruptive change, or misfortune without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional or harmful ways (emphasis mine).  http://resiliencycenter.com/resiliency-definitions/

This morning, on Facebook, I wrote this:

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 as doomerism.
Believing it is "too late" is really a belief that all that is left to save is unworthy of bothering to save. And we know that just isn't true. There is a lot left to save.
The real terror is not that it is too late. It is that we will be facing terrible suffering if we look to what is left to save.
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.
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.

Well, that is all fine and good.  But HOW?

So I looked to the American Psychological Association's words of wisdom packaged for internet use on resiliency.  And 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.

(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.  

Um, yeah.  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 25,000 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 or that carbon pricing is in the Democratic platform or that your presidential candidate wants to build a national grid to enable renewable power to flourish. (Side note:  one thing every US citizen over 18 can accomplish on November 8 is to vote for that candidate, and climate active candidates down ballot).

(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.   (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.  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.

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.  The antithesis of "facing disruption without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional ways."

Practicing resiliency within the context of climate action may be an essential way to move beyond that.

How long do we have until we must act on climate change?

Spoiler alert...the answer is both "no time left at all" and "however long it takes."

I am going to try to untangle the numbers that climate scientists and journalists throw around a bit, the very numbers that confused the heck out of me when I started to look seriously at climate change, and confuse many folks still.

First, let's start with all this 1C, 1.5C and 2C warming.  What exactly does that all mean? That means, if you average together all the temperatures around the surface of the globe before 1880, and you compare them to the average global temperatures between 2006 and today, they are warmer today.  Depending on which years you choose (2000-2010, 2005-2015, 2006-2016), our current warming is about 1C or 1.8F.  (This should not be confused with the more terrifying numbers of the warming we have seen when we average only January through July of 2016.  Those amount to 1.38C warming.  This is, we hope, a particularly high number because El Nino is taking extra stored heat out of the ocean and bringing it to the surface right now.  Keep in mind that even in that context, 1.38C is extremely high and should alarm everyone.)

In Paris, in December, almost 200 nations agreed that we need to limit warming to under 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible.  Why?  Well, the scientists are pretty clear that beyond 1.5C warming means utter disruption and severe devastation.  Island nations disappear, coral reef ecosystems cease to be (and the food that they provide for millions of people), extreme weather intensifies, water supplies disappear for many people, food crop yields drop.  We begin to see impacts that will themselves certainly bring greater warming (called a positive feedback).

IPCC's projections of damage at varying levels of warming

That warming is the result of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere up until about 40 years ago.  Keep in mind that greenhouse gases do not make heat.  They trap it like a blanket.  When you are cold in the winter, and you put a blanket on, it takes a while for the heat you are producing to build up, trapped by the blanket, to make you feel warm.  The same is true with global warming, except the heat source is the sun.  We are on a delay and will continue to warm even if we stop burning fossil fuels today.  Stop completely.  We will still warm for another 40 years.  We have "locked in" at least 1.5C warming (2.7F).

That makes it sound like we need to stop burning fossil fuels today.  Like, why am I typing this out on a computer if it is this urgent, today?  Even James Hansen, who arguably understands the urgency as well as anyone on the planet, is using fossil fuels.  Why do people who get the urgency keep saying, we have to cut emissions to zero by 2050?  Why not by tomorrow?

What gives?

Well, here is where the sociopolitical realities meet the physical realities.  The latter is immutable.  The former?  Only stubbornly slowly mutable.

No one is going to turn off the energy.  This isn't some demonstration of humanity's evil side.  Our technologies are things we rightly think should be accessible to the poor, who do not yet have it.  We don't see energy as an evil luxury of wealthy nations that the poorest are noble to go without.  Just consider hospitals and refrigeration alone.  These are not evil things.  And no politician is willing to tell a populace that they must go without them.  I would say, understandably.  Just the simplest example:  we travel to our jobs, where we earn money to care for our children, those same children we are endangering with warming.

The very values that would make us cut emissions are often the very values that drive us to continue to use fossil fuels.  

Here is the beautiful thing:  we could continue to use energy without causing warming.  Everyone should, at this point, agree that is what we need to do.  Continue to refrigerate, heat, cool, drive, but without carbon emissions.

We have the technology to decarbonize our energy systems.  The tools we have available for electricity are solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear.  Transport, home heating and cooling, and much of our industry can convert to electricity.  Agriculture can be done in a way that minimizes fertilizers and reduces meat consumption.  Almost all industry can be carbon free.  (There are some exceptions, and R&D into things like cement, a source of high carbon emissions, are essential).

We have the technology and means to cut almost to zero emissions now without halting all modern civilization.

Turning off technology is not an answer anyone can or will choose.  But decarbonization is.

BUT here is the thorny part.  We can't just turn off gas, oil and coal tonight and wake tomorrow and turn on solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear.  We can't just park our internal combustion engine cars tonight and drive off in EVs tomorrow.

It takes time and money to build the infrastructure.  That's right.  This is basically a question of time and money.

People say we must ban fracking.  I am all for ending fracking.  But to do that, we have to have something to replace it.  Solar and wind are excellent.  But they require sufficient storage and transmission.  (If those are not sufficient, then, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we use gas, which can be turned on and off easily, called "dispatchable.")  Thankfully, Clinton has plans to build up our electrical grid and our energy storage, which will, in fact, permit us to end gas use as a necessary complement to renewables.  But that takes time.

People say we must ban coal.  Coal produces more emissions than any other fossil fuel.  So it is rightly the first to go.  Because we don't have the infrastructure for transmission and storage to complement renewables built yet, when coal plants are shut down, they are often converted into gas plants.  The option?  No energy for the very families we are trying to protect from the ravages of climate change.  So gas comes online as we end coal.  Because gas has lower emissions, we have seen it as a step forward, albeit one rife with problems, not the least of which is fugitive methane.  (Keep in mind, this has been primarily driven by market, simply because gas is so cheap, coal couldn't compete).

People say we must ban nuclear.  This makes no sense to me.  Nuclear energy produces nearly zero carbon emissions.  Keeping our current plants running gives us one less source of energy likely to end up replaced by gas.

People say we must build solar and wind.  Absolutely.  ABSOLUTELY.  But these are intermittent.  Alone, they leave people in the dark if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.  So as we push for renewables, we must also push for a national grid that can move the energy from where the sun shines or wind blows to where it does not, and we must also push for storage like batteries and pumped hydro to keep from when the sun and wind are productive to when they are not.

And we must push for the infrastructure necessary for transport.  Charging stations for electric vehicles, for example.

This all takes time and money.

So here is the bottom line.  We are not going to avoid 1.5C.  We won't.  We likely won't avoid 2C.  (Heck, discussion of staying under 2C was all but given up a few years ago, before Paris gave us newfound hope).  When the nations met in Paris in December, they each pledged to make changes that will allow us to avoid the 4C we are headed toward, and come in around 3C.  They agreed they would work to pledge more each five years, to "ratchet up" efforts.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.

And THAT is what we need to take away.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.  Our job is to get it to move as low as possible by building the infrastructure we need today.

We are now, finally, talking about building the very infrastructure we need to begin decarbonizing. (Hillary Clinton's plans incorporate many of these measures). We must continue to push for that infrastructure:  grid, storage, solar, wind, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and, yes, lifestyle changes.  But we cannot stop to call our desire to raise our children with modern technology evil.  We must continue to value our children's welfare by working as quickly as we can toward cutting emissions.  At this moment, that simply means taking the first steps, and knowing we will be urging more after those first steps are taken.  And accept that we are chasing a moving target.

Infrastructure changes like those that Clinton is proposing will help move that target in the right direction.  And legislative actions like a price on carbon, brought by a progressive voting bloc in Congress, will help speed its movement in that right direction.

Your vote this November may be the single most important action you can take on climate change.  Not because we have no time left, but because we have this time left.

A Short Primer on Carbon Pricing

"Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals." --The 2016 Democratic Party Platform

Carbon pricing is now a part of the Democratic Party Platform, one hard fought for by Bill McKibben, as Bernie Sanders' representative on the platform committee.

Now that it is part of the platform, and our stated goal, it is ESSENTIAL that all of us understand the different types of carbon prices. The Democratic "establishment" has, in the past, tended to favor a cap and trade.  There are reasons why we may not want them to push for a cap and trade, but instead a tax.  Please, please, please, learn about the different forms of carbon pricing and their strengths and weaknesses.  We must be sure to see a solid, strong carbon price implemented, not a weak one that simply drives profit for corporations.  To get that, we must be informed!

I present my own understanding of the carbon pricing below, but urge you to read more, because, as I point out below, I am utterly biased toward a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.

Economists generally favor carbon pricing because it "internalizes" the costs of carbon.  In other words, it means that a consumer of carbon is no longer paying an artificially cheap price, pushing its environmental, health and economic costs onto others.  Imagine that you owned a house, but someone you never met had to pay for your heat.  You would likely never look at the thermostat with caution.  You have externalized your heating costs onto them, a person who has no control over the decisions that drive those costs.  Climate costs are like that.  We burn coal, oil and gas without considering the costs of sea level rise, extreme weather, increases in vector borne diseases, ocean acidification, and more.  By adding a cost to the carbon, we "internalize" those costs.  We are now much more likely to find creative ways to avoid paying those costs, much like we would put on a sweater first before turning up the thermostat.  Our decisions become more efficient, reflecting an economist's ideal and we are preserving resources necessary for our children, the ideal of anyone concerned about climate impacts.

Any carbon price automatically raises three questions:  (1) how do we collect the price (2) how much should we collect and (3) who gets the money once it is collected, given it is we, ourselves that would have borne the averted externalized costs?

(1)  Collecting the price.  A carbon price can generally be collected in either one of two ways: (a) cap and trade, also referred to as carbon markets OR (b) a tax, also called a fee. Cap and trade systems create "licenses to emit," a bit like hunting licenses.  You can hunt for two deer, for instance.  Or, emit X amount of tonnes of carbon.  The amount of licenses are limited to the amount of carbon we think is appropriate, as we taper down to none by our target date of zero emissions.  On the other hand, a tax/fee simply places a price per tonne of carbon dioxide and charges miners, drillers and importers of carbon that amount per tonne of carbon that enters our economy.  This would be as if we charged hunters a flat rate per deer hunted.  A price is picked that is projected to drive the transition to our target date of zero emissions.

(2)  Assessing the fee.  Many attempts have been made to determine the true social cost of carbon.  The answers, predictably, vary widely.  While we have a very high level of certainty that the future will be warmer, we have only projected ranges of the exact amount of warming, and even broader ideas of possible impacts to physical and living systems, including our food and water.  Moreover, if we could internalize the true costs of carbon, in full, we would likely collapse our economy.  In fact, the whole point of putting a price on carbon is to avoid the kind of social collapse that those impacts will actually bring.  Instead, most carbon pricing mechanisms aim to charge an amount that will get us to our goal of zero emissions by 2050.  (Or some compromise that is more politically viable, but less effective).  

Cap and trade attempts to deal with this by giving out only the allowed amount of licenses to emit, and letting the corporations bid and compete, thereby setting the market price by free market forces.  Taxes use large economic models to project the impacts of a particular fee and set it at that cost which will drive us to zero emissions by 2050.

(3)  Distributing the collected funds. The funds either (a) can be used by the government for some purpose (related to climate or other), in which case it is said to be "revenue raising" or (b) the funds can be returned to the citizenry 100%, in which case it is said to be "revenue neutral."  Most revenue neutral carbon prices return the funds by a direct dividend, monthly or quarterly, to all citizens or by reducing other taxes in equal amount in combination with tax credits for the poor.

(4)  General Pros and Cons.  We can make some generalizations about the strengths and weaknesses of each of these different pricing mechanisms.

(a) Cap and trade.  STRENGTHS:  Cap and trade is favored by many economists because a market sets the real price.  At the same time, many energy experts prefer it because it sets a hard limit on emissions that correlate to the scientific projections of when we must get to zero emissions.  WEAKNESSES:  It is often difficult to implement, creating administrative costs to give out and monitor the licenses to emit and the sales and purchases of those licenses.  Many cap and trade systems also have "offsets" which allow a corporation to emit more if they also capture and store some, defeating the purpose of the licenses in the first pace.  Many cap and trade systems have been criticized for failing to cut emissions but allowing companies to make more money off of markets.

(b)  Tax/Fee.  STRENGTHS:  This is easy to administer and has great transparency.  Harder to manipulate for corporate gain.  WEAKNESSES:  I am biased.  There are none.  :)  In reality, any preference held by economists and environmentalists for a carbon market is lost when one considers that the true cost of carbon is so much more than that required to aim for zero emissions by 2050, that true cost becomes irrelevant.  A carbon tax is transparent, easy (and therefore less expensive) to administer.

(c) Revenue Raising Prices.  STRENGTHS:  Money can be used to strengthen subsidies for carbon free energy and infrastructure necessary for its use.  Money can also be used for other important government programs.  WEAKNESSES:  People have less incentive to continue the program because they do not easily see where the money is going.  The poorest pay in carbon price, but do not have income to cover additional costs.

(d) Revenue Neutral by reducing income taxes.  STRENGTHS:  Politically more viable.  Conservatives seek to cut taxes.  Many conservative economists like this because it shifts us from taxing something that is beneficial (work) to something harmful (carbon).  WEAKNESSES:  The poorest pay in carbon price, but do not receive back as much as those that pay higher income taxes.  This can be alleviated with a tax credit for those in the lower income tax brackets.

(5)  Revenue Neutral by dividend.  STRENGTHS:  Politically more viable.  People receive a dividend monthly, making it nearly repeal proof.  Poorest among us get back more in the dividend than they pay in the fee because they have lower consumption.  Transparent.  Trustworthy.  WEAKNESSES:  I'm biased.  It has none.  :)  


Specific Carbon Pricing Policies Enacted or Proposed:
• Citizens' Climate Lobby's 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.”  Citizens' Climate Lobby is one popular version, that starts at $15/ton the first year and adds $10/year thereafter.  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.    In the 2008 presidential election, both Obama and McCain favored a cap and trade.  Currently, there are two carbon markets enacted.  California enacted a cap and trade in 2015 covering sources responsible for approximately 85% of California’s GHG emissions. It aims for an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.  Because it cannot implement a border adjustment as a single state within the US, "leakage" of emissions is an issue.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) includes nine northeastern states all in a carbon market since 2009.  It has been marred by issues of lax caps, but has seen cuts primarily responsible by a shift from coal to gas.

• Congressman VanHollen Bill (Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2014).  Rep. VanHollen 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.

• British Columbia's 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.  (1) The Boxer-Sanders bill rebated 60% to citizens, retaining 40% for subsidies and deficit reduction.  (2) 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.   (3)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.