Climate To The Left of Me? Climate To The Right.

Hillary Clinton

Climate change is not caused by capitalism. Climate change is not caused by political corruption. Climate change is not caused by plutocracy.  

Climate change is caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Anyone and everyone that remotely claims to understand or "believe in" climate change, needs to accept that we must cut emissions.

And, anyone that claims to understand climate change must also accept that we are out of time.  We must get to zero emissions by 2050 just to have a moderate chance of staying under 2C, by even the most optimistic projections.  That means building the infrastructure we need to get to zero today.  In our current system.  

We don't have time to remake our political system first. We don't have time to end political corruption first. We don't have time to solve class, LGBT, gender or racial injustice first.

No.  We don't have time.

If we care about the poor, if we care about women, children, the LGBT community, or minorities, if we care about our government, if we care about our children, if we care about animals and plants, if we care about anything that we have in our lives, we must place the utmost emphasis on cutting emissions.  Every single thing we know or love is jeopardized by climate change. 

We are out of time. And we MUST end carbon emissions. NOW.

As climate solutions go, I prefer the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend. But a cap and trade can work. A carbon tax swap can work. A revenue raising carbon tax can work. Subsidies for renewables and ancillary infrastructure can work. Nuclear can work. Local, state and federal regulations can work. Private corporate investment can work. Public-private partnerships can work.  Religious edicts can work.  

I will take any and all of the above.

And anyone that claims to understand climate change will too. 

Michael Brune

Michael Brune and the Sierra Club, along with other environmental groups that opposed a carbon tax in Washington, have just demonstrated that they don't understand that.  (Brune cited that the carbon tax wasn't strong enough for various constituents in Washington with whom the left is allied, despite the fact that it includes a payment up to $1500/year for the poor).

People unwilling to vote for Hillary Clinton, who has strong plans for renewables and efficiency, the grid, storage, and load-shifting necessary to renewables, as well as for incentives for states to cut emissions, have demonstrated that they don't understand that.

Yes, we need plans to keep it in the ground.  A price on carbon is accepted as one of the best ways to do that.  And, yes, Hillary Clinton has been generally mum on a price on carbon because she does not see it as politically viable. 

(This is the statement from her campaign back in July:  "'Sec. Clinton would welcome working with Congress to address this issue but she also believes it is too important to wait for climate deniers to listen to science,' Trevor Houser, a Clinton campaign energy policy adviser said... 'That's why she is focused on a plan she can implement from Day 1.'")

Apparently, like most of us, she assumed it wasn't politically viable because of science denial in the GOP. 

One could guess that the left also might block a carbon price if it failed to raise revenue and spend money on renewables.  But no one would have guessed that it wouldn't just be the left, it would be the environmental left blocking a carbon tax. That is shocking. 

Think about that for a moment.  

The leaders in our country on climate...the people who are supposed to know most clearly that we are in dire straits...the people who should know that we must put cutting carbon above all else in order to protect all that we love...they don't get it.  

If the left doesn't get it?  That leaves the center and the right.  And you know what?  I predict that the center and the right will take ownership of cutting carbon before the left ever figures out how to stop squabbling. And the left will be stunned when they've lost on this issue. 

Carlos Curbelo

Bob Inglis

People like Bob Inglis  (former Representative and founder of the Republican carbon tax advocacy group RepublicEn) and Carlos Curbelo (Republican representative and co-founder of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus) are waiting in the wings for that day.  

And you know who else may be predicting the same thing?  Hillary Clinton, who thinks that same none-of-the-above-energy crowd should "get a life." 

(Her leaked comments:  “They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life.

Clinton continued: “I’m having conversations in these town halls and these meetings I’m having with a lot of people who break into my meetings, they hold up posters, they scream at me, and all the rest of that: ‘Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal’ you name it.") 

No coal, no oil, no gas, no nuclear...that is not reasonable if you want to lead 320M people who have homes to heat unless you build renewables and infrastructure to support renewables first.  People wonder why she doesn't support a carbon tax. Well, hell, the environmentalists on the left can't even seem to get it together to do that. 

So what is she doing?  She is looking to address climate while speaking the right's language--becoming the clean energy superpower of the world. And not only that, she is doing it with the support and advice of people with a whole lot of experience dealing with climate and energy (Al Gore, John Podesta, Jennifer Granholm, just to name a few).

"Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy."  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

Well, someone's got to speak about climate in language the right understands.  The left sure isn't. 

And it looks like that someone is Hillary Clinton.

And you know what?  I am with her.

Unjust Corporate Profits and Cutting Carbon

Florida, which has the third highest potential for solar energy production, ranks 14th for actual production.  Since 2008, there has been a property tax exemption for homeowners who install photovoltaic solar at their residences, but no similar credit for corporations.

Yesterday, Florida voted for a constitutional amendment giving corporations a property tax exemption for solar installations to be in effect for 20 years, starting in 2018.

The fantastic news is this passed with 73% of the vote.  That demonstrates phenomenal support in a state that has a strong Republican presence.  This is the state whose governor banned state environmental employees from saying "climate change."

This 73% included a wide range of interests, across the political spectrum, right and left:

"Backers of Amendment 4 were all along the political spectrum, including the pro-environment Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Nature Conservancy, and Florida Conservation Voters, and the business-backed Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Retail Federation and Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association."

Those tax breaks are going to likely result in huge amounts of corporate dollars turned to solar infrastructure.  Of course, it will also benefit corporate bottom lines.

And herein lies the interesting wrinkle to this story.  The only opposition reported came from the LEFT:

"The opposition was led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, the TV and radio talk show host and president of the National Action Network, and Bishop Victor Curry of Miami, NAN’s southeast regional director, who said they opposed 'unnecessary and unjust tax breaks for corporations.'”

This is reminiscent of an ongoing challenge in Washington State.  Washington has a ballot proposition to implement a revenue neutral carbon tax.  The biggest opposition is from the Democratic Party and labor unions, who worry that it doesn't raise revenue to be retained to fund government policies. Sierra Club cites the fact that it doesn't raise revenue for clean energy as part of its basis for opposition. (There are questions about whether it actually has an error that makes it revenue losing and that is a legitimate concern, but the opposition to revenue neutrality itself is telling).

These two state initiatives to address climate change are both finding their opposition on the political LEFT.  In each case, it seems to be driven by concern that corporations or private interests will get an unfair break of some kind.

We often assume that it is big business, corporate interests, conservatives and Republicans that are getting in the way of cutting carbon.  But what if it is also the climate concerned left?

In the case of Florida, business got a tax break.  And they will likely invest some of their considerable resources into building renewables infrastructure.

Al Sharpton wasn't happy about it.  Labor unions and Sierra Club aren't happy that Washingtonians may collect money on carbon and give it all back to private citizens without raising revenue.

But here is the question.  How important is it to us to cut carbon emissions?

We have five years left at current emissions before we have lost even a 66% chance of staying under 1.5C warming.  Does Al Sharpton appreciate what will happen to the disempowered, the poor, minorities, women and children when we hit 1.5C?  2C?  3C?  Surely, Sierra Club must, no?  Do we really have time to turn our noses up at policies that will cut emissions just because they help corporate interests?

As these types of questions become more and more frequent, it appears that the political right won't be the only group that has some climate soul searching to do.

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.

The Regulatory Hydra

Regulation of oil, gas and coal is like trying to cut the head off a hydra.   You do it, because the head is dangerous, but two more heads pop up in its place. The ongoing saga of fighting for reasonable regulation of gas is exemplified by the news out today that scientists are challenging EPA conclusions on fracked water.

At some point, the focus must be on the demand for these fuels. A growing number of experts identify a carbon tax is THE gold standard means for addressing that.  Other carbon pricing mechanisms can work too. We don't have one of those. Congress isn't really keen on passing one.  Yet.  (Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups have seen great progress on the Hill and Sanders' campaign just raised awareness and political will for a carbon tax immeasurably).

Carbon pricing is not the only way to send market signals, however. We have seen the impending demise of coal simply because we allowed gas to be utterly cheap. That happened by allowing frackers to pollute and create wanton destruction.

Lack of regulation keeps market prices low. Imposing regulation drives up market cost. The more we regulate gas, the higher its cost will be.

Yes. Back to the dreaded hydra. Because, at the end of the day, it comes to us to demand that private actors don't hurt each other. We have a police force because we recognize that. Private actors don't just use theft, trespass, rape and murder to hurt each other. They use things like fracking too, so long as it's profitable.

However, we'd better be careful. As we regulate gas, if we don't want to return to coal, we'd best be sure there is a cheaper alternative to them both.

Renewables are looking to be that. Some reports show that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest means of energy production.  However, without transmission or storage, renewables will remain dependent on gas.

So, we must make transmission and storage and solar and wind work together more cheaply than gas. Quickly.

How?  Subsidize the corporations making renewables or give tax breaks to the people buying them.

Congress, last December extended the tax credits for solar and wind purchases. There are growing numbers of state programs supporting renewables as well. This is important to getting us to the 2020 mark when renewables will be cheaper even without these subsidies.

But transmission?  We need a national grid. (Hillary's got a plan for that, as part of her infrastructure plan.  And she is continuing to make it a key part of her campaign even when she is talking about the broad scope of her campaign.)

The market signals also impact another source of energy:  nuclear. At the moment, nuclear, like renewables with transmission and storage, can't compete with poorly regulated gas unless subsidized. This is not just true of newly built plants. This is true of maintaining current plants. Yes. Running already existing nuclear plants is more expensive than fracked gas. That's why they are closing.

If we want carbon free energy, we will subsidize it while also regulating carbon filled energy. It's really that simple.

Well, it could be simpler. We could ditch all that and enact a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.

Thanks to CCL Canada for the Image

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.