They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has an "Oh, shit" moment--an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and they suddenly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself. Listening to the speeches, groundbreaking in their way, that President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered September 22 at the UN Summit on Climate Change, I was reminded of my most recent "Oh, shit" moment.
The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very
muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised
countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price. The
Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for these
countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on
average against 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2007, America's
greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent higher than 1990 levels.
Everyone needs something to believe in, and for many Latin American progressives, that something for years has been Costa Rica. The country has long been cited as a beacon of progressive tranquility in a region better known for violence, inequality and poverty. Following an uprising in 1948 led by Jose Figueres Ferrer, the country embarked on its own unique path of social democracy, involving extensive progressive taxation, universal health and education availability, and no armed forces.
In the 1960s, a University of Wisconsin graduate student named
Thomas Crocker came up with a novel solution for environmental
problems: cap emissions of pollutants and then let firms trade permits
that allow them to pollute within those limits.
When
he was a graduate student in the 1960s working to reduce pollutants,
Thomas Crocker devised a cap-and-trade system similar to one being
considered in Congress.
A palpable sense of triumph accompanied the passage last
week of a first-of-its-kind global warming bill in the US House of
Representatives. Rep.
"If we can design a policy that is transparent and easy for people to
understand, puts an effective price on carbon, and reimburses average
Americans for all or nearly all of their increased energy costs, we
have a chance to reverse climate change in a timely manner." So
concludes political scientist Elaine Kamarck, PhD,
lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government, and
former head of the national performance review "reinventing government"
(1993-97) in the Clint
Motorists here and throughout British Columbia are paying more at the pump after a planned rate increase to the province's much-debated carbon surcharge on gasoline.
The jump to 3.6 cents per litre from 2.4 cents went into effect on July 1, marking the one-year anniversary of the levy. Increases also cover diesel, natural gas, coal and similar fuels.
No one wants to open their wallet even wider when they refuel, but it's worth considering why the tax was implemented.
We would support legislation in Congress to address climate change
if it were capable of accomplishing that goal. Unfortunately, despite
the best intentions of its proponents, the bill known as Waxman-Markey
would disable our ability to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for at
least a decade, hugely increasing the risk of irreversible climate
calamity.
James Hansen, climate scientist and scourge of our carbon-intensive lifestyle, is the subject of a 5,000-word profile in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine.
