The sentence that leads off a story in today's New York Times by Elisabeth Rosenthal about the economic crisis is all wrong.
Just as the world seemed poised to combat global warming more aggressively, the economic slump and plunging prices of coal and oil are upending plans to wean businesses and consumers from fossil fuel.
Not that I doubt Ms. Rosenthanl's journalistic abilities. It's just that such a reaction is the exact opposite of what we should be seeing.
It seems almost axiomatic that the economic crisis should be what motivates world leaders to do something about climate change, not put their heads back in the sand.
Let's face it, despite all the optimistic talk about how good it would be for economies if we invested in clean technologies and mitigated future global warming instead of paying the enormous price of adapting to it, and how preventing catastrophic climate change is a moral imperative because the poor will be hit the hardest, the plain truth is, there really is no hope that we're going to do what needs to be done unless there's a reason above and beyond climate change itself.
We're wasted the past couple of decades since the big heat wave of 1988 first drew our attention to even older science that should have served as an adequate warning. But just when it seemed like we were completely running out time (remember the melting Arctic ice), along comes the perfect opportunity to respond on a world war-machine scale. The credit crisis and consequent economic weakness presents exactlu the motivation for transformative change that we need.
We need to pour hundreds of billions into the economy, and everyone with a functioning brain stem seems to agree that the example set 75 years ago by the Roosevelt administration's public works projects is one we should follow. So all we have to do is choose projects that not only put people to work and get the economy moving again, but make sure those projects also serve an environmental end. This is why Obama's talk of millions of green jobs, solar panels and wind turbines was so hopeful.
But now we see in Rosenthal's story that:
From Italy to China, the threat to jobs, profits and government tax revenues posed by the financial crisis has cast doubt on commitments to cap emissions or phase out polluting factories.
This is wrong-headed thinking, because, while few people in places of power are willing to spend more directly on climate change mitigation, they would be less averse to spending the necessary sums if it was disguised as run-of-the-mill economic stimuli.
Later in the story we see that at least some people get it. Barbara Helfferich, the European Commission spokeswoman on the environment, says:
"I know it sounds counterintuitive, but our argument is that because there is an economic turndown, it is just the time to tackle the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy," Ms. Helfferich said.
My only objection to that kind of statement is it's no counter-intuitive at all. It makes perfect sense. Here's more optimism from Canada's Globe and Mail's Martin Mittelstaedt a few days ago:
A chorus of proposals from liberal-leaning think tanks and conservation organizations is suggesting that the best way to revive the faltering economy would be to finance solutions to pressing environmental problems.
Supporters are calling the idea "green stimulus." They argue that directing new government expenditures to wind farms, solar panels, gas-sipping cars and mass-transit infrastructure, among other items, would give a far bigger boost to the economy than tax cuts or government rebates.
The environmental funding would have the side benefit of helping solve such problems as global warming by spurring the development of less-polluting energy sources and increased energy efficiency.
Exactly. Big changes in how public money is managed are coming. On that all agree. So why not make sure we spend that money wisely and do something about the changing climate? This is a rare opportunity. Let's not blow it.
- Log in to post comments
Please stop using the word "we" as in what "we" should be doing. It infers me and you and makes me feel dirty. You should stick to what "I" (i.e. YOU) should be doing. Speak for your ownself only. - Tippy the Tipping point Tipperrooo
As I mention in my previous post here,
we are not going to make it unless we move to depression economics. I think serious climate debaters are now realizing this. Look at some of the figures George Monbiot relayed in his article below...
As you can see they are pretty startling. But not really, we all have a level of denial and ignorance at the level of effort and sacrifice which is needed. And this is not entirely our fault things are just escalating way faster than our reflex for adaptation is.
My worry about the energy and CO2 footprint to actively implement green solutions is real and others are concidering this...from the same article....
This is bad new. But it is the only way forward. We have to some how Manage a deep economic depression in a way that ensures our reduced CO2 levels and then emerge from it as a more sustainable society and civilization.
Tippy only problem is he does mean we.
hey this looks like a great green way to protest.
Come on all climate change activist use your airports in the most effective way
Protesters swarm Thai airport, takeoffs suspended
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/protesters-swarm-thai-air_n_14…
James Hrynyshyn - I read some of your posts here and the give and take on the comments. You are all over the map as it relates to journalistic style/approach. You're the college philosophy professor with the pipe one minute, and a two year old calling names and slinging insults the next. Stick with the easier light-hearted approach and try to stay consistent with style. Trust me, that's your viable groove. It's surely not real scientific proselytizing or debate. You will keep your foot out of your mouth (or keyboard) on a much more frequent basis if you heed my advice. Leave the science to the big boyz. Good Luck.
"We" do need to move to a depression economy, based upon frugality, minimal consumption, and sustainability. Imporving rail transport would be an excellent start.
I did read Astyk's post, and I am sympathetic to her views. That is why conservation is so important. If the infrastructure improvements will indeed involve a large carbon footprint as part of the startup cost, then the only way to get headroom is with conservation.
Joseph - there's no WE about it. YOU need to do it. Today. Go for it. Look in the mirror and worry about your ownself.
High energy prices helped to stall the economy. Only a seriously deluded misanthrope would call for cap and trade restrictions or higher energy taxes to make energy even more expensive just when the market is working to bring energy costs down.
It's as if we were in a life boat trying to row to shore and your answer is to throw out the paddles so as to "stimulate" new propulsion technologies.
James, I 100% agree with you. I am a PhD student in Sociology developing an idea similar to this. I think it's remarkable that, for the first time, we have Congressional leaders framing "green" corporate change (regarding the Big 3 automakers) in terms of protecting an investment (the bailout). It seems like the traditional mainstream opposition of economy and environment may be breaking down.
"framing green corporate change". No need for prose, call it what it is- Government sticking their hands in private free enterprise business. You can go ahead and just start using the S word at this point. We're there.
Yes, JD, that's because the free markets suckered everyone. And that's without even considering climate change.
Greed pigs everywhere with their heads in the trough, just didn't see this coming.
Had a look at your 401k recently? Still got a job?
I think you'll find no systems perfect. Its all about balance and commonsense.
Wind farms could change weather
"WE" are blowing it. By "WE", James means, James and his very own FROG in his pocket. Surely he doesn't mean "us". heck no I can tell you that. ps for the dweebies - I was paid $700 to write this. be afraid you conspiracy parrots you.....Sqwawk sqwawk. Kids - don't be a biology major. Take Math instead.
Problem is HE does mean WE.
No you fools, he means I. This makes much more sense.
"I need to pour hundreds of billions into the economy...I have to choose projects that not only put people to work and get the economy moving again, but make sure those projects also serve an environmental end."
That's a lot of responsibilty James, and do you even have hundreds of billions of dollars?