[Blue Olives] New Lords of the Moving World

[David Biddle]

[http://www.getunderground.com/underground/features/article.cfm?Article_ID=2164]
In May of 2007, I published an essay at GetUnderground called New Lords of the Moving World. It's worth a read even a year later now that the business community is so hopped up on Green Koolaid. In "New Lords" I add to my argument that the business and corporate sectors around the world are pulling the rest of the social institutions along in the fight against greenhouse gases. For those interested in finding out about solutions, there's a good number of resources that I offer in my essay. This is an important point as we move toward nominations in August -- and elections this fall. People who worry about which candidate has the best plan to attack global warming may be missing the point: it's not about the best plan, it's about who can work properly with the private sector. Solutions are going to come from invention, investment, and intention -- not regulation or master plans (a cap and trade system and an escalating carbon tax wouldn't hurt, though).

Two special points of note since "New Lords" was published are:

1) The Supreme Court decided that, indeed, EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes, and yet, bizarrely, EPA Administrator, Steve Johnson, refuses to give his approval to California's regulations -- regulations demanded as much by the private sector as environmental NGOs and public sector environmental planners;

2) The new rage in pooh poohing global warming is to claim that the costs associated with trying to mitigate the next 100 years or so of rising temperatures do not justify the price of re-tooling the global economy. A variation of this second point is that modern nations must simply adapt to changes in climate, and since changes will be fairly slow it shouldn't be hard to keep up with our problems (take New Orleans, for instance, where they're building a better levee system).

The Supreme Court's involvement with environmental policy and law, which I wrote about in another essay called "The End of Reason," is a fascinating turn of events in this unfolding story about global climate. Many legal experts felt that the case brought by the states was really going to be kept to a narrow decision about executive branch power. Instead the Court basically said, "You have given us no credible reason for not dealing with this problem, EPA. Get with the program."

There are no doubt a huge number of lobbyists and elected officials who make their money off of the fossil fuel industries gathering in closed rooms and hidden web spaces talking about their next move. The clock is ticking, of course. By this time next year people who know what they're doing will be back in power (yes, even John McCain understands you pay attention to scientists and work to solve problems rather than denying, lying, and censoring).

Which is why understanding what is now being said about adaptation and the cost-benefit problems of global warming is so important. These arguments are actually very rational and a number of folks have been debating them for quite a while. The cost-benefit issue is obviously a tough one and is really at the root of the Bush administration's foot dragging these days, but the point is that you just have to consider things like less snow in the Rockies and the Alps, a couple more Category 5 hurricanes lambasting big cities on the Eastern Seaboard, or a major long-term drought in the Midwest or Southwest. How do you do a cost-benefit analysis that makes sense with these catastrophes?

The adaptability one, however, has real merit. Already many of the drought-stricken Western prairie urban areas are scrambling to figure out long-term water rights issues and backup technologies such as de-salination plants. Bio-engineering firms are cutting their teeth on new drought-friendly crop hybrids. And, a lot of people just aren't moving back into New Orleans (which, sad to say, is a really smart idea).

Part of the problem with trying to adapt our way out of this mess is that we kind of need to solve the problem, not hope we can shape shift and cope with whatever comes our way. The global community generates 7 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases annually (and we're on track if we do nothing for that number to rise to 10 billion metric tonnes by 2025). Another part of the problem is that adaptation after a disaster tends not to be a real rational process. It's quite possible that states or groups of states might adapt by facing off against each other in ways that are anything but conciliatory.

I could go on about how there are projections of carbon dioxide concentrations rising from 370 parts per million to 650 parts per million over the next 30-40 years. I could give you all the evidence that our current way of doing things at best, if we were to halt all CO2 emissions tomorrow would still see the global mean atmospheric pressure rise another 3 degrees centigrade or more over that time period.

But what I really want to get at is the fact that we absolutely have to start solving this problem by investing in today's technologies and today's opportunities TODAY. That means recycling the crap out of everything at home and at the office (I'm willing to bet you don't have a very good recycling program at work). It means selling your car if it gets under 35 mpg on the highway. It means driving 55 mph even if you do use a fuel efficient car. It means doing away with incandescent lighting (now outlawed in Canada and Australia and California by 2012). It means buying green power even though it costs a lot more -- NOW! It means investing in green and clean technologies and divesting in any stock having anything to do with the fossil fuel industries -- especially coal. It means walking to the store, buying local farm products, eating less meat (or none). It means taking vacations closer to home. And it means more conference calls and fewer business trips. In that vein it also means thinking locally again (remember that?) and voting for candidates who understand the idea of regional and local economies -- candidates who eschew large-scale, over-the-top national and international cartels and programs that leak profits out of communities.

In the end, this means getting our shit together. Personally, I know I'm not doing the best I can, and I'm sure you aren't either. But I'm trying. And I will continue to try -- both as an example to my peers and friends, but also as a duty to my sons and my future grandchildren.

The business world has the tools right now to truly reverse the carbon economy. But it means that we all have to pay to get there. The simple life is over. Time to get real and get complicated. If you understand that and are willing to actually do something to get us beyond where we are today, then half the battle's over.





--
Posted By David Biddle to Blue Olives at 4/06/2007 06:07:00 PM

[east...@comcast.net]

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2529744920080325

 

is it appropriate to legalize drugs now? jc

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: David Biddle <david....@verizon.net>
[http://www.getunderground.com/underground/features/article.cfm?Article_ID=2164]

In May of 2007, I published an essay at GetUnderground called New Lords of the Moving World. It's worth a read even a year later now that the business community is so hopped up on Green Koolaid. In "New Lords" I add to my argument that the business and corporate sectors around the world are pulling the rest of the social institutions along in the fight against greenhouse gases. For those interested in finding out about solutions, there's a good number of resources that I offer in my essay. This is an important point as we move toward nominations in August -- and elections this fall. People who worry about which candidate has the best plan to attack global warming may be missing the point: it's not about the best plan, it's about who can work properly with the private sector. Solutions are going to come from invention, investment, and intention -- not regulation or master plans (a cap and trade system and an escalating carbon tax wouldn't hurt, though).

Two special points of note since "New Lords" was published are:

1) The Supreme Court decided that, indeed, EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes, and yet, bizarrely, EPA Administrator, Steve Johnson, refuses to give his approval to California's regulations -- regulations demanded as much by the private sector as environmental NGOs and public sector environmental planners;

2) The new rage in pooh poohing global warming is to claim that the costs associated with trying to mitigate the next 100 years or so of rising temperatures do not justify the price of re-tooling the global economy. A variation of this second point is that modern nations must simply adapt to changes in climate, and since changes will be fairly slow it shouldn't be hard to keep up with our problems (take New Orleans, for instance, where they're building a better levee system).

The Supre me Court's involvement with environmental policy and law, which I wrote about in another essay called "The End of Reason," is a fascinating turn of events in this unfolding story about global climate. Many legal experts felt that the case brought by the states was really going to be kept to a narrow decision about executive branch power. Instead the Court basically said, "You have given us no credible reason for not dealing with this problem, EPA. Get with the program."

There are no doubt a huge number of lobbyists and elected officials who make their money off of the fossil fuel industries gathering in closed rooms and hidden web spaces talking about their next move. The clock is ticking, of course. By this time next year people who know what they're doing will be back in power (yes, even John McCain understands you pay attention to scientists and work to solve problems rather than denying, lying, and censoring).

Which is why understanding what is now being said about adaptation and the cost-benefit problems of global warming is so important. These arguments are actually very rational and a number of folks have been debating them for quite a while. The cost-benefit issue is obviously a tough one and is really at the root of the Bush administration's foot dragging these days, but the point is that you just have to consider things like less snow in the Rockies and the Alps, a couple more Category 5 hurricanes lambasting big cities on the Eastern Seaboard, or a major long-term drought in the Midwest or Southwest. How do you do a cost-benefit analysis that makes sense with these catastrophes?

The adaptability one, however, has real merit. Already many of the drought-stricken Western prairie urban areas are scrambling to figure out long-term water rights issues and backup technologies such as de-salination plants. Bio-engineering firms are cutting th eir teeth on new drought-friendly crop hybrids. And, a lot of people just aren't moving back into New Orleans (which, sad to say, is a really smart idea).

Part of the problem with trying to adapt our way out of this mess is that we kind of need to solve the problem, not hope we can shape shift and cope with whatever comes our way. The global community generates 7 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases annually (and we're on track if we do nothing for that number to rise to 10 billion metric tonnes by 2025). Another part of the problem is that adaptation after a disaster tends not to be a real rational process. It's quite possible that states or groups of states might adapt by facing off against each other in ways that are anything but conciliatory.

I could go on about how there are projections of carbon dioxide concentrations rising from 370 parts per million to 650 parts per million over the next 30-40 years. I could give you all the evidence that our current way of doing things at best, if we were to halt all CO2 emissions tomorrow would still see the global mean atmospheric pressure rise another 3 degrees centigrade or more over that time period.

But what I really want to get at is the fact that we absolutely have to start solving this problem by investing in today's technologies and today's opportunities TODAY. That means recycling the crap out of everything at home and at the office (I'm willing to bet you don't have a very good recycling program at work). It means selling your car if it gets under 35 mpg on the highway. It means driving 55 mph even if you do use a fuel efficient car. It means doing away with incandescent lighting (now outlawed in Canada and Australia and California by 2012). It means buying green power even though it costs a lot more -- NOW! It means investing in green and clean technologies and divesting in any stock having anything to do with the fossil fuel industries -- especially coal. It means walking to t he store, buying local farm products, eating less meat (or none). It means taking vacations closer to home. And it means more conference calls and fewer business trips. In that vein it also means thinking locally again (remember that?) and voting for candidates who understand the idea of regional and local economies -- candidates who eschew large-scale, over-the-top national and international cartels and programs that leak profits out of communities.

In the end, this means getting our shit together. Personally, I know I'm not doing the best I can, and I'm sure you aren't either. But I'm trying. And I will continue to try -- both as an example to my peers and friends, but also as a duty to my sons and my future grandchildren.

The business world has the tools right now to truly reverse the carbon economy. But it means that we all have to pay to get there. The simple life is over. Time to get real and get complicated. If you understand that and are willing to actually do something to get us beyond where we are today, then half the battle's over.