CCL Press File Dec. 2011-May 2012 by The HotSpring Network

LTE, APRIL 13, 2012

Fossil fuel addiction threatens our world Like Jay Bookman, I noticed that the blossoms on the azaleas had come and gone long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at Augusta National (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Changing climate alters the Southeast,â&#x20AC;? ajc.com, April 9). We must face the facts that an unlivable world awaits us if we fail to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating up our planet. Our nation (and much of the world) is

hooked on fossil fuels, and an intervention is needed to prevent us from ruining the lives of our children and grandchildren. That intervention comes by weaning ourselves off coal and oil with a gradually rising fee on carbon-based fuels. If revenue is returned to the public, as it is in the Save Our Climate Act, we can detox without a shock to our economic system. Steve Valk, Atlanta

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 8, 2012

On climate change, no support from the senator THANK YOU to Frank Phillips for the report on a violation of the People’s Pledge by Scott Brown’s oil and gas industry supporters at the American Petroleum Institute ( “Brown to pay fine after group violates ad pact,’’ Metro, March 27). As a penalty for the organization having run print and radio ads on his behalf, Brown agreed to make a donation to charity of half the cost of the ads. I wonder how many times Brown’s friends will run ads, and he will acknowledge the violation, and then magnanimously pay the penalty. It seems like a good deal for Brown: he gets free press coverage about how graciously he gives money to charity, while he

can say he had no control over the ad run by an organization with which he is not affiliated. The ad still aired, though, and it still made its insidious arguments - and it only cost him half of what it would have cost him to place an ad himself. What a good deal. The only drawback is that climate change was not mentioned in the ad, nor in his acknowledgment of the violation - and Scott Brown’s intransigence regarding serious legislation to address climate change was not mentioned in the article, either. Judy Weiss Brookline

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Benefits of green energy outweigh cost IT WAS noteworthy that the Globe’s article about NStar’s deal to purchase electricity from Cape Wind did not focus exclusively on the higher cost of electricity from Cape Wind, but pointed out the advantages of this energy in terms of diversification of New England’s energy portfolio, societal cost savings due to foregone emissions of greenhouse gases, and price reductions related to applicable subsidies ( “NYSENSTNStar OKs top dollar deal with Cape Wind; But consumer impact projected as modest,’’ Page A1, March 31).

Even with these advantages, though, concerns about higher prices are easily understood. They put Massachusetts companies at a disadvantage compared to other regions. The best way to address this, however, is not by working to encourage Massachusetts to maintain or increase its dependence on fossil fuels, but by working at the federal level for climate and energy policies as progressive as ours, if not more so. Gary Rucinski Newton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Concerns about higher prices are easily understood IT WAS noteworthy that the Globe’s article about NStar’s deal to purchase electricity from Cape Wind did not focus exclusively on the higher cost of electricity from Cape Wind, but pointed out the advantages of this energy in terms of diversification of New England’s energy portfolio, societal cost savings due to foregone emissions of greenhouse gases, and price reductions related to applicable subsidies ( “NYSENSTNStar OKs top dollar deal with Cape Wind; But consumer impact projected as modest,’’ Page A1, March 31).

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 5, 2012

Clean Energy Illinois and four other states came a step closer to offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes (New, April 1), and that is welcome news. Wind farms, once mocked by climate skeptics and opponents of renewable energy, are now a profitable way to generate clean electricity for our homes and businesses. Experience gleaned from commercial wind farms will continue to bring down costs, as has always been the case with new technologies, to the point where tax credits are no longer needed to support them. But that time has not yet arrived. Although politicians have become allergic to the words "climate change," the scientific reality of that phenomenon still haunts us. Slow but steady greenhouse gas buildup caused by the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil and gas -- is a real threat to the well-being of future generations. Not only environmentalists but analysts from the U.S. military to the insurance industry are warning that extreme weather, ecological damage and rising sea levels will

impose painful costs on our economy in the coming decades -- unless we act now. Wind energy and other forms of renewable power generation can ease those risks. That benefit should be rewarded through a simple mechanism that is long overdue: an annually rising carbon fee on fossil fuels, with every dollar rebated back to the American people as a monthly payment or tax credit. This will encourage efficiency and lower consumption but, more important, will unleash a flood of pent-up capital for investment in clean energy technologies. It's good to see that Midwestern policymakers are learning to overcome "not in my backyard" objections and moving forward with offshore wind farms. Let's support them with a national clean energy policy, for a safe and secure future. Kenneth O'Hare, Perry Recker, Jay Mulberry and Richard Knight, Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicago

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

Enjoy weather but cut emissions We’re nearing the end of the warmest March in Chicago history, on the heels of one of the warmest winters ever. Just a nice little gift from Mother Nature? Maybe not, according to a new report in the journal Nature, which says that “extreme weather events over the past decade have increased and were ‘very likely’ caused by manmade global warming.” It goes on to say, “Recent years have seen an exceptionally large number of record-breaking and destructive heat waves in many parts of the world and research suggests that many or

even most of these would not have happened without global warming.” That’s not good, considering that our greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to pour out at the rate of 200 tons per second. Pleasantly warm weather in March may be a harbinger of less pleasant things to come. It’s time to force our elected officials to take action to curtail fossil fuel emissions. Ideological objections can’t change the laws of physics. Rick Knight Brookfield

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

Fate of the world is at stake As a climate-change activist, and member of Citizens Climate Lobby, I am continually amazed that people deny that we are experiencing climate change ("On climate change, society trails science," Monday). We need to act with great urgency to change our energy equation to reduce, and quickly, our use of carbon-based fuels. In Philadelphia, with its many multifaith communities, there is a great opportunity for our faith-based leaders to speak up, in their congregations, and publicly, on the reality of human-caused climate change, and our need to be a part of the solution. We have

wonderful opportunities to take climatechange-mitigating actions here, with strong leadership from Mayor Nutter, who has talked about Philadelphia being a "green city," and City Council. Our time is limited before we pass a climate tipping point. This is about the world we are bequeathing to our unborn and unimagined descendants. Will our descendants look back at us and ask, "What were they thinking?" The fate of the world is at stake. The time to act is now. Peter Handler Philadelphia

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2O12

The call to care for creation Thank you for the excellent opinion piece "On climate change, society trails science" (Monday). As a pastor, I was especially glad to see religious voices included in the article. People of faith are organizing in Philadelphia and around the country to raise awareness of the

spiritual, moral, and ethical issues raised by climate change. God's call to care for creation and bring justice to the poor demands that we act now. Cheryl Pyrch Pastor, Summit Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

A moral imperative on debt, climate change To allow the next generation a fair shot at its future, it’s our obligation to not leave a legacy of uncontrolled debt and climate change. I applaud Henry A. Waxman, Sherwood Boehlert, Edward J. Markey and Wayne Gilchrest [“To slash debt, look to the skies,” Washington Forum, Feb. 24] for understanding this moral imperative. They called for a price on carbon to encourage a shift toward cleaner energy and to reduce the deficit.

Sure, energy prices would go up — if we’re serious about deficit reduction, there is no free lunch. But there is such a thing as a healthy lunch: A price on carbon would help curb dangerous emissions. And much of the revenue could be rebated to households, providing them the funds to invest in energy efficiency and deal with higher costs. Nils Petermann Washington

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

Climate change High marks to the Tribune for the thorough, thoughtful front-page article about the climate change impact of aging coal-fired power plants. Climate change is real, as made clear through decades of hard work by thousands of scientists. Their painstaking efforts have untangled the puzzle of Earth's energy balance and our growing impact on it from fossil fuel emissions. If we fail to come to grips with this challenge, the consequences to the health, wealth and security of future generations could be dire. Solutions exist. All that's lacking is the political will to put them into action. Even industry sources such as the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the utilities themselves recognize the need for action. But because of Washington gridlock, including blockage of the excessively complex 2010 Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the only option available for the administration to

address climate change has been through contentious and difficult regulations, as detailed in the article. This is too bad, because a much simpler and more effective approach, supported by scientists and economists all across the political spectrum, is a carbon tax-and-rebate mechanism such as the Save our Climate Act of 2011. This would impose a fee on fossil carbon at its source (coal mine, oil well, etc.), with most of the revenue returned back to American households in the form of a rebate or tax break. This would uncork a flood of private investments in renewable and carbon-neutral energy. It would also encourage measures to greatly increase energy efficiency. Every member of our Illinois congressional delegation should support this and put this problem to rest for once and for all. We owe it to our children. Perry Recker, Blue Island Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 31, 2012

Save Our Climate Act would get the job done In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama spoke of the need for a “cleanenergy standard” to help manufacturers eliminate energy waste. There is not nearly enough trust in his administration to do this. Fortunately, there is another path to this goal: the Save Our Climate Act. It would focus on

the problem of our undefended atmosphere and put a fee on fossil carbon dumped there. No, it doesn’t have a big corporate lobby — but it would get the job done.  Peter Peteet, Atlanta

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JANUARY 23, 2012

Delaying Keystone pipeline the right step USA TODAY's editorial misses the mark on the Keystone XL pipeline. That so-called steady stream of oil that would have been transported by the Keystone XL was not guaranteed for U.S. markets. Why should we have put our country at risk of more oil spills so that Canada could sell its tar sands to the highest bidder? Even the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out that the pipeline wouldn't have decreased U.S. reliance on Middle East oil ("Editorial: Obama's pipeline decision delays energy security"). President Obama made the right decision in denying the permit. Even as a symbolic gesture, it reflects widely held opinion that fossil fuels are not the energy source of the

future. Other countries know this: Within the past few months, China has set carbon emissions limits, and Australia passed a carbon tax. Many countries in Europe get large portions of their energy supply from renewables. Why must the U.S. continue to wallow in an energy plan better suited to the 20th century? Let's continue fighting dirty projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline and finally pass some meaningful climate legislation such as a carbon tax. Doing so would give us a jumpstart on the inevitable clean energy economy of the future. Erica Flock Reston, Va.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 19, 2012

Trying to teach climate change Re "Classrooms feel climate skepticism," Jan. 16 As students take advanced science courses in college or graduate school, they discover that much of what they learned earlier was overly simplified. However, younger students still need to learn the most basic facts about science. As for climate change, the most basic facts are, first, that humans emit carbon

dioxide; second, that carbon dioxide causes warming; and third, our planet is warming. These basic facts are as certain as the theory of gravity and need to be taught. The complexities can wait until later. Lauren Rafelski La Jolla

JANUARY 15, 2012

Steve Valk Communications Director and Regional Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby

Climate deniers hit new low with vicious attacks on scientists The climate deniers are kicking puppies now. That was my reaction when I heard that Katharine Hayhoe was being deluged with hate mail after stories surfaced that she had written a chapter on climate change for Newt Gingrich's upcoming book, a chapter quickly dropped when conservative commentators began making a big fuss about it. Similar attacks have been leveled against MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel following his speech at a forum for Republicans concerned about climate change. The "frenzy of hate" he's received include threats to his wife. Anyone who has ever listened to Hayhoe would be as sickened as I was over the vitriolic attacks she has endured in the past week. Being both a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, Hayhoe speaks to faith communities, explaining the science of climate change in easy-to-understand language and also offering the spiritual perspective on global warming: What would Jesus do about climate change? "My own faith is the Christian faith and in the Christian faith we are told to love our neighbors as much as

ourselves," Hayhoe recently told the Toronto Globe and Mail. "And our neighbors, especially the poorer ones, are already harmed by climate change." She's co-authored a book with her minister husband, Andrew Farley, titled A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions. On our conference call with Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers last November, she came across as one of the sweetest and likable persons you'd ever hope to meet (You can listen to that call here). The mother of a two-year-old who's married to a minister and works on climate science at Texas Tech University, Hayhoe never has a harsh word to say about anyone, especially those who disagree with her on the science of climate change. Like a true Christian, she's done an inordinate amount of cheek-turning lately. News that her chapter was being dropped from Gingrich's book came not from the candidate or his staff, but from the media seeking her reaction. She, however, has been more than gracious. I immediately thought to approach her about posting the "missing chapter" on

our Website, but she declined our offer, saying she did not want to demonize Newt or be mean-spirited. Did I mention that Hayhoe put in 100 unpaid hours on that chapter? I'm sure Gingrich wasn't aware of it. Not that it would matter. The former House Speaker has been too busy backpedaling on the climate issue in order to appease the anti-science wing of the GOP that currently calls the tune. When his presidential campaign started picking up steam in December, Mitt Romney went on the attack over Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi on climate change. Before the cock had crowed three times, Gingrich vehemently disavowed the commercial ("I tell you, I don't know the woman!"). The trouble with flip-flopping on an issue, though, is that it's hard to cover all your tracks. Four years ago, Terry Maple, who co-authored A Contract With the Earth with Gingrich in 2007, approached Hayhoe to write the opening chapter of their next book. Word got out about the collaboration in December, and before you could say "Ditto," Rush Limbaugh was blasting Gingrich for working with a non-denying climate scientist, even if she was a Christian. The disappointment of being dropped from Gingrich's book, though, is nothing compared to the onslaught of hate mail that Hayhoe has endured. Though she's too polite to repeat the words used in those messages, one gets a sense of it from this quote in the Globe and Mail: "The attacks' virulence, the hatred and the nastiness of the text have escalated exponentially. I've gotten so many hate mails in the last few weeks I can't even count them." It's been the same for MIT's Emanuel since a video -- "New

Hampshire's GOP Climate Hawks" -featuring him was posted on Mother Jones' Climate Desk. His remarks were subsequently distorted by right-wing bloggers, some of whom published his email address. He described the emails in a Mother Jones interview: "What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat... I think most of my colleagues and I have received a fair bit of email here and there that you might classify as hate mail, but nothing like what I've got in the last few days." Are there new depths to plumb in this "debate"? Physical violence? I certainly hope not. I'm sure that the Republican candidates for president, even the ones who vociferously deny the existence of climate change, are appalled at the turn the discourse has taken. They should be speaking up and calling for a halt to the hate mail, to keep the conversation civil. It could start with Gingrich stepping up to condemn the attacks on Hayhoe. As his prospects for the Republican nomination rapidly wane, I hope he'll feel less compelled to appease the vocal and volatile climate deniers. I hope he'll reinstate Hayhoe's chapter in his book with a heartfelt, "My apologies. You shouldn't have been treated this way." If there's anything positive to come from the attacks on Hayhoe and Emanuel, it's the realization, hopefully, that the deniers have bottomed out. As anyone in a 12-step program can tell you, there's nowhere to go from here than up. Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizens climate

DECEMBER 27, 2011

LETTERS

Factor pollution into costs of energy storage ‘‘NSTAR TO test A123’s storage cell’’ (Business, Dec. 19) straightforwardly reports on the company’s plans to test A123’s grid-‐ scale storage systems. However, an industry researcher’s statement that “the lack of cheap energy storage is what is continuing the natural gas and coal paradigm’’ is a significant overstatement. Our continued dependence on natural gas and coal continues because these fuels are not priced to account for the costs their use imposes on society. These costs include human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; aquifer contamination and geological destabilization from hydraulic fracturing; and environmental

degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution. If these costs were included in the prices for natural gas and coal, the economics would shift in favor of conservation; storage, solar, and fuel cells; wind; geothermal; and biofuels. As a result, investors would rush to fund the innovation needed to bring down the cost of energy storage and other technologies. We would see in hindsight that the implicit subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels were what perpetuated our dependence on them, not the costs of the alternatives. Gary Rucinski Founder Boston chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby

READERS WRITE, DEC. 18, 2011

CLIMATE ACT

A start toward reduced carbon emissions We should all breathe a sigh of relief (“Climate deal doesn’t make things worse — or better,” ajc.com, Dec. 11). The climate talks in Durban didn’t solve global warming, and there is a lot left to do — but an accord is in place. After the hottest decade in history, any progress is welcome. The politicians cannot solve the greatest problems we face, but if they

support the Save Our Climate Act and put a reasonable price on emitting carbon, they can hand us the tools for the United States to put our energy and ingenuity to work to lead the world to reducing our emissions by 2015 (as we must). Our greatest days are before us — if only we will seize them. — Dr. Timothy S. Hanes, Atlanta

READERS WRITE, DEC. 16, 2011

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Proposed legislation needs to be passed now Regarding “Climate deal avoids bottom line” (News, Dec. 12), I find myself wondering what it’s going to take for us to get our act together and move aggressively toward a renewable energy economy. The logjam in Durban underscores the importance of developed countries (such as the U.S.) leading the way with new technology and clean energy. This will accelerate when we have a realistic pricing model that takes

into account environmental and public health impacts of burning fossil fuels. Proposed legislation, HR 3242, sends clear price signals to the market that will accelerate the development of alternatives without putting undue stress on citizens. We need to pass this legislation now — and move back into a position of leadership on global issues like climate change and renewable energy. — Brandon Sutton, Atlanta

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011

Climate progress It was encouraging to see the Tribune's report on the outcome of the climate talks in Durban, South Africa: a path forward to a worldwide legal agreement to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. At long last, the biggest and fastest-‐growing greenhouse gas emitters -‐ -‐ China, the U.S. and India-‐-‐ have come to grips with the most urgent and contentious issue facing humanity. Unprecedented bouts of budget-‐ busting extreme weather in recent years have given us a taste of what to expect if we fail to follow through. But while the agreement is encouraging, we can ill afford to wait until 2020 to start bringing down our fossil fuel emissions. We must act now to meet our responsibility to future generations. The simplest, most transparent and most fiscally conservative policy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is a

revenue-‐neutral carbon tax. Impose a fee on carbon-‐based fuels at the wellhead or mine exit, based on carbon content, and rebate the proceeds back to American families. This would unleash the free market to determine the most cost-‐ effective methods to cut carbon emissions, whether through efficiency, renewables, carbon capture, or whatever else American ingenuity can produce. Legislation based on this approach, the Save Our Climate Act, has been introduced in the U.S. House. Given the urgency of the situation, our congressional delegation should give this bill serious consideration. It's time for the politicians to stop posturing and act in the best interests of America and the world. -- Rick Knight, Ken O'Hare, Perry Recker and Jack Baker, Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicagoland Chapter

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 16, 2011

U.S. should take the lead on carbon curbs The Dec. 12 front-‐page article “Outcome of climate talks falls to Asia” highlighted the importance of addressing carbon emissions in China and India, which are the No. 1 and No. 3 carbon emitters, respectively. While cutting emissions in these countries is critical, the United States (No. 2 emitter) is a much worse offender per capita and must pass emissions legislation as soon as possible.

A bill sitting in Congress now, the Save Our Climate Act, would put a tax on carbon and use the revenue to help consumers pay for higher energy costs and pay down the deficit. Passing such legislation would not only mitigate climate change but also would encourage other big emitters like China and India to follow our lead. Erica Flock, Reston The writer is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby.

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 25, 2012

Act to save our climate from the ‘new normal’ “U.S. forecasters say heat will stay on this summer,” said The Times’ headline on May 18. It seems to imply that this forecast is for just a single summer, but it is not: It is part of a long-term trend. The planet’s temperature is going up — and up — and up. The article says this summer will be “warmer than normal.” Warmer than what normal? Author Bill McKibben, in his book “Eaarth,” points out that the conditions we once thought normal no longer exist on this planet. Today, we are living with a “new normal”— and each year, on average, is hotter than the year before. We must not let this happen. And we need not. We can slow, halt and reverse the globe’s rising temperature as soon as we choose to apply the available remedy. The antidote to

the warming trend is embodied in the Save Our Climate Act, H.R. 3242, now awaiting action in the House of Representatives. The bill has 12 Democratic sponsors — no Republicans as yet, but word has it that several are considering backing it. If there were nothing we could do about this warming trend, people might simply become apathetic. And why not? They might as well eat, drink and try to forget the coming doom. But there is something we can do: We can pass this bill. Republicans, especially, need to persuade their legislators to get busy and make it happen. It’s time to turn this deadly climate trend around. Ellie Whitney East Windsor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 19, 2012

Climate and tar sands On May 5, the climate organization 350.org held a day of awareness during which thousands of people around the world took photographs to demonstrate the connection between extreme weather and human-made climate change. View a twominute video of these images at http://act.climatedots.org/signup/video. In a recent New York Times op-ed, "Game Over for the Climate," renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen described the costs of developing Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tar sands: "If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually

would reach levels higher than â&#x20AC;Ś 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher." As we rush to develop our own tar sands in eastern Utah, and contemplate exploiting its tar shale, Utah citizens have the opportunity to say No! to the reckless path we are on. By writing, calling and voting, we can let politicians know that in the conservative state of Utah, we care just as much about ending this threat to life and civilization as we know it as the many people around the world who voiced their concern in early May. Sam Schmidt Salt Lake City

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 18, 2012

Climate change is real Re: The Detroit News' May 16 article, "Study: Michigan saw increase in strong weather in last decade": Thank you for pointing out the impact that climate change is already having on Michigan. When Michigan has to import cherries from abroad because its own iconic crop was destroyed after a weirdly mild winter, when the village of Pellston breaks a previous March temperature record by a whopping 32 degrees, when the number of extreme storms in the state jumps 52 percent in 10 years, it's

time to take our collective heads out of the sand and realize that climate change is happening right here, right now. We face steadily increasing temperatures and more severe storms unless we change the course we're on as soon as possible. The solution is clear: we have to stop burning fossil fuels like coal and oil that are causing climate change. Erica Flock Washington, D.C.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MAY 16, 2012

Today’s letters: Who’s to blame for global warming? Andrew Coyne’s salient article on climate change inaction is correct to point out what can only be described as negligence of the greatest order. With such an overwhelming majority of the climate scientists warning us of dire consequence, standard risk management dictates action. It’s time to put politics aside and put a price on carbon. We know how to get back on track. Where is the leader to take us there? Ian Edwards Toronto

What Canada needs, as Andrew Coyne suggests, is not a new layer of designed-to-fail regulations (the Harper plan) but a simple price on carbon that allows the market to work its own regulatory magic. Doing this would be very easy. Just impose a tax on fossil fuels at the wellhead or wherever they enter the country and distribute the resulting income among all Canadian adults. Start at a modest level, but build in a predictable increase and stick to it. Then watch as our pocketbooks and conscience join forces to take us down the smartest path to low-carbon prosperity. Paul Antze Toronto

OPED, APRIL 25, 2012

Commentary - Earth in the balance: What will you do? You’ve heard it all before. The last 10 years the hottest since mankind started keeping records – about the time the Industrial Revolution gathered speed. Record floods displacing millions, droughts with thousands of cattle dead, fires destroying millions of acres of valuable forest and farmlands. The Amazon rainforest burned off by cattle ranchers responding to record beef prices. By Jeanne Johnson, 7th Congressional District Citizens Climate Lobby, Alexandria, MN You’ve heard it all before. The last 10 years the hottest since mankind started keeping records – about the time the Industrial Revolution gathered speed. Record floods displacing millions, droughts with thousands of cattle dead, fires destroying millions of acres of valuable forest and farmlands. The Amazon rainforest burned off by cattle ranchers responding to record beef prices. More than 17,000 temperature records broken in March alone. The insurance companies raising premiums because of losing billions in weather-related losses. Americans are starting to feel the early warning system of an Earth out of balance. My own understanding of Earth in the balance grew out of an early appreciation for the wonder of nature. As a child I wandered my Iowa farm, learned the language of pasture and field, grew to know the scent of the walnut trees perfuming the summer air, gloried in fields bright with butterflies. I breathed it in. And the weather. It was always on the mind of a farmer. It brought joy or

despair. But even the disappointments had a certain regularity. A balance. Now we have lost that balance. In the era of human-caused climate change, I have come to realize that when we interfere with the balance of nature, all of us will suffer. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We live here. There’s nowhere else to go. A Depression child, I watched as others suffered the inevitable pain that life can bring. But this change in the weather is not the preordained working of nature. We did this, are doing it every day. We can’t help it. Our economy runs on oil and coal and to a lesser extent, natural gas. We have benefitted greatly from this free energy, built the most powerful nation in history. Take away these fossil fuels, created out of ancient bacteria millions of years ago, and we would suffer total economic collapse. Yet these resources are limited. What do we do when they run out? A tax on oil, coal and natural gas looks like the best approach. Small increases in the price of the dirty fuels would create an investment boom in clean energy – wind, solar, biomass – creating millions more jobs. Consumers would buy fuel-efficient cars and retro-fit their houses. Industry would seek ways to reduce energy use. Ask 3M and Dow about the billions saved in smart factories. And, yes, coal-fired utilities would have to either find ways to clean up coal or switch to natural gas. Contrary to popular wisdom, Americans do care deeply about the Earth and its people. Witness the recent attendance at the Alexandria Eco Fair, the number listening to Don Shelby’s nature talk, the urgent questions at Senior College following Dr. John

Abraham’s lecture on climate change. National surveys show that Americans care, wish to reduce our use of fossil fuels, and would support a tax on them even if it meant higher utility bills. Yet few of our leaders dare take a stand. They cower in their offices warmed by fossil fuel campaign donations, terrified of fuel industry retaliation in the next election, and lip syncing industry talking points. A daring legislator has introduced a bill (HR3242 – Save Our Climate Act) that would enact a tax on oil, coal and natural gas. The bill returns the tax revenue to the American

people with an annual check. Just like they do in other countries. Citizens Climate Lobby analysis indicates that almost 70 percent of Americans would be made whole by the rebate. Many low users would get back more than any increase in prices. Only the individual action of committed citizens can overcome the hundreds of Big Oil lobbyists. In this, the Week of the Earth, are you one of those who will take this small step, a brief moment of your time to witness your commitment? Time is running out. Lester Brown has warned, “Nature is the timekeeper, but we cannot see the clock.”

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat By Marshall Saunders

In this March 4, 2003 file photo, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference in Washington. (Associated Press)

As I watched the Masters tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National — the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March — 15,000 temperature records were set — and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA's first major of the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn't matter, but they're just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth's climate. As Earth Day arrives, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or

the world that human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. At a climate change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed is the feedback loops being reached — thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much CO2 as what's currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rainforests from carbon sinks to carbon

emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. There is another equally important tipping point: the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have, essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political-will tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes all of the following: Quickly weans the United States off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the

government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. A bill that meets these criteria has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the Save Our Climate Act (HR3242). It places a gradually-increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like HR3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie "Apollo 13," failure is not an option hear. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Marshall Saunders is the founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Marshall Saunders: Earth to mankind By Marshall Saunders Special to The Sun As I watched the Masters tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National — the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March — 15,000 temperature records were set — and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA's first major or the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn't matter, but they're just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth's climate. On Earth Day, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or the world human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. “The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, said. “If we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed forever.”

At a climate change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed are the feedback loops being reached — thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much CO2 as what's currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rainforests from carbon sinks to carbon emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. It's a world where, at mid-century, 9 billion people will be clamoring for everdwindling food and water, producing instability and turmoil on a scale we've never seen. There is another equally important tipping point, which is the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have, essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political will

tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes all of the following: ■ Quickly weans the United States and other nations off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. ■ Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. ■ Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. ■ Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. ■ Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. ■ Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. Amazingly, a bill that meets all these

criteria has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242). It places a gradually-increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like HR 3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie “Apollo 13,” failure is not an option here. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Marshall Saunders is founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, April 22, 2012

Earth Day: Our precious and rare Mother Earth

MARK DYE/FOR THE STAR LEDGER

Laura Grabowski and her brother Christopher, bag trash on the Raritan River as part of the The Raritan River Earth Day Coalition's activities in New Brunswick in 2009.

By Tony Giordano One night not long ago I was watching a science documentary on television when I heard something striking. Able to quickly understand the message, I wasn’t totally shocked, merely surprised that I had never before heard this simple yet profound truth: by far the most amazing thing in the universe known to science is the planet Earth. The countless, precise conditions required to support intelligent life are so rare and yet our home planet alone has all these necessary conditions. Yes, perhaps we’ll soon discover life on other heavenly bodies, but increasing numbers of scientists believe that intelligent

life will prove to be extremely rare because that exact set of requisite conditions must exist for hundreds of millions of years in order for intelligence to have a chance to evolve. These conditions range from climate to physical elements to plate tectonics to location in the solar system and galaxy. The uniqueness of this rich, blessed planet is yet another reason for us to appreciate our Mother Earth. My thesis is this: our wondrous, unique, life-giving planet Earth is terribly unappreciated. It’s not at all clear why that is, but maybe it’s time to change our thinking and recognize how we depend totally on the

many life-giving properties the Earth provides. Stop and think a moment about common expressions such as, “one of God’s creatures,” or “God gave us life.” Is it not really the Earth that accounts for these blessings, at least in part? Shouldn’t some of the credit given to ‘God’ go to the Earth for giving birth to life and sustaining it? Whether or not you believe in a God you can recognize the vital and indispensable things the Earth gives. Many years ago a Native American wise man offered these observations that seem eerily prophetic today: “The white man treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only desert… This earth is precious to Him, the God of man, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator.” -- Chief Seattle (c. 1786-1866) Is there not a deeply spiritual quality in the wonders of our Mother Earth? Can we not see there the qualities we attribute to a Creator? And are we not offensive and contemptuous of this God with our careless, destructive treatment of the Creation? It’s ironic that we thank and worship deities based strictly on faith in words written some 2,000 years ago, but have difficulty recognizing the endless manifestations of life’s source right in front of us daily—the wonders of the only planet in the universe known to support life. Is this simply a case of ‘familiarity breeds contempt,’ causing a grand transference of our love from this deserving planet to a highly embellished and rationalized conception of a deity? What more can we ask of a God than what the Earth has given us? Terms intended to denigrate and trivialize environmentalists such as “tree hugger” have always mystified me—why shouldn’t we love trees? They’re truly spectacular, the crowning achievement of the plant kingdom. And they provide such vital things as much of the oxygen we breathe. We need trees, and more of them. But they’ve somehow become the

target of ridicule from people denying climate change and the need to protect the natural environment. Well, let me just say proudly, I absolutely love trees. And for that matter, I love the many diverse creatures who share this planet with us. When I see a squirrel or bird or ant I feel an innate connection, a bond in our common ancestry and shared DNA, and an interdependent fate. We will live and die with these creatures. But perhaps because people now spend so much of their time indoors on computers or in front of TV sets in artificially heated or cooled environments amidst countless luxuries, they tend to forget that we like all creatures are part of nature and depend on its delicate balance for our very survival. We are losing our connection with nature and our reverence for it. Sadly, if Chief Seattle were alive today he’d no doubt feel that we Americans are among the most contemptuous inhabitants of this precious creation. We are destroying this Earth in so many ways, climate change being simply one dire aspect of the problem. Can we be wise and caring and humble enough to change our thinking and our ways? What will our descendants who inherit this planet think about how we’re treating it? The good news is that hopeful signs are emerging that people and governments and institutions are finally starting to see the light and take action. The growing GreenFaith religious coalition to protect the environment is one promising example. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences statement on the urgent need for action on climate change is another. It’s not just science telling us to act. While a host of conglomerates led by the notorious Koch Industries continue to fund propaganda denying climate change, they quietly prepare for a world of rising seas and weather extremes and energy shortages. They know what’s happening-- how long can they play it both ways? Can these powerful corporations lead us to solutions rather than continue to exacerbate the problems? Maybe they’re waiting for direction from us— the voters, taxpayers, consumers-- who make

their existence and their fortunes possible. How would you have them treat this precious planet of ours on this Earth Day and beyond?

Tony Giordano, adjunct college instructor and researcher in social science, is a volunteer with the Citizens Climate Lobby, Sierra Club and Monmouth County Cool Cities Partnership

OPED, APRIL 22, 2012

Christopher Byrd: We must address climate change now By Christopher Byrd It's Earth Day in Tallahassee, and the planet sends a message: Stop burning things that make us hotter! Earlier this month, while watching the Masters golf tournament, I had the sense that something was missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National. The azaleas, normally in full bloom during the first major tournament of the year, had peaked several weeks before, just as they had here in Tallahassee — thanks to the unusually warm March weather that saw 15,000 temperature records broken in the United States. Our azaleas are but one of the many canaries in the coal mine signaling that something is terribly amiss with the world's climate. As Earth Day 2012 arrives, our planet is trying desperately to sound the warning: If we don't curtail our burning of fossil fuels, the world that we have known and come to rely on will cease to exist. But will the public and our elected officials heed this warning in time to avert the catastrophes that await us on our current trajectory? Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to change course before we lock in the inefficient, carbon-based infrastructure that will cause greenhouse gases to rise beyond sustainable levels. "The door is closing," said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA. "I am very worried — if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what

scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed forever." At a climate change conference in London in late March, scientists warned of the tipping point that may be reached within this decade — a tipping point that would make the warming process irreversible. Of great concern are: • Thawing of Siberia's permafrost, which contains about 1,600 billion tons of CO2, more than twice the amount in the atmosphere. • Droughts in Brazil, which are transforming the Amazon rainforest from a carbon sink into a carbon emitter. • Ice sheets that are shrinking, with the Greenland ice sheet losing about 48 cubic miles each year since the 1990s. • Losses of sea ice in the Arctic, which once reflected the sun's light and now are leaving dark, open water that absorbs sunlight and heat. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. Oxfam reports that climate change is a factor in the floods and droughts that are devastating crops and sending food prices skyrocketing. Last July in Ethiopia,

maize prices were 191 percent higher than the previous five-year average; in Kenya, maize prices were 161 percent higher. Despite dire warnings that our current decade is a do-or-die time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the most recent international conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, produced an agreement to start taking action several years down the road, and the emissions would not begin to be cut until 2020. The global community is playing Russian roulette with a fully-loaded revolver. If there is any sign of hope, it comes from the surging development of clean energy — wind and solar in particular — in industrialized nations. That hope, however, is being dashed as governments reduce their support for renewables. A recent report shows that global investments in clean energy have plunged to a threeyear low. How can we reverse this perilous course? We need a national policy that will quickly and efficiently wean the United States and other nations off of our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. We need to stop burning things that make the world hotter. Such a policy must also protect our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. We need a solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force. It must be simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. It must protect U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. It must motivate other nations to follow suit with similar policies of their own. What national policy could possibly meet all these criteria? Legislation to do all of these things already awaits consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in October, the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242) would tax the amount

of CO2 a fossil fuel emits when burned, starting at $10 a ton. The tax increases by $10 a ton each year, eventually making clean energy sources such as wind and solar more profitable than coal and oil. But wouldn't this new tax increase the cost of energy? How could the public be persuaded to accept such a thing? The answer is simple: Give the revenue from the carbon tax back to consumers. Stark's legislation would take most of the money — a small portion goes to deficit reduction — and return it to the public as equal, per-capita annual payments, thus protecting households from rising fuel and energy costs. To protect American businesses from unfair foreign competition, HR 3242 would impose border adjustments on goods from nations that don't have an equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. Rather than pay the U.S. Treasury, nations would be motivated to impose a similar tax and keep the proceeds within their own borders. Worried about China? They'd either play or pay. Because it is a revenue-neutral approach that doesn't increase the size of government, the carbon fee and dividend, as it is called, can be supported by Republicans who seek a solution on climate change but are averse to more subsidies and regulations. Even if Stark's bill is not passed in this Congress, our leaders must begin to discuss in earnest legislation to address climate change. Let's hope that by Earth Day 2013 our elected officials will have heeded our planet's dramatic warnings and put in place a policy that steers us toward recovery. If our elected leaders haven't taken action by then, early azaleas will be the least of our concerns. Christopher Byrd is Tallahassee group leader of the Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org ). Contact him at christophertbyrd@gmail.com .

OPED, April 22, 2012

Opinion: It's hard to celebrate Earth Day while facing crisis of climate change By Tony Giordano

Michael Mancuso View looking north of evening rush-hour traffic on I-295 with PSEG's coal-burning Mercer Generating Station in background at left.

By Tony Giordano

More and more people are taking the opportunity on Earth Day to recognize and celebrate the countless life-giving wonders of our precious home planet, the only place in the universe known to support life. But, for some of us, the celebration is dampened by the realization that we’re abusing and mistreating our home, most notably by poisoning the air daily with tons of greenhouse gases that alter the climate. Much of the public, burdened by climatechange denier propaganda, is unable to accept the unpleasant reality of climate change and seek solutions. Fortunately, when people learn the facts, they can understand man’s role in the problem. Climate change is real, it’s caused primarily by man’s activities, and we need to act now to reduce destructive fossil fuel use and develop clean energy. While climate change is a technical, complex subject, it’s nevertheless surprising that stubborn denial and widespread confusion remain about what accounts for it.

The scientific community is convinced, based on overwhelming evidence, that recent climate change is due to human activity. The few vocal “deniers” of the science are generally not climate scientists, or they have financial conflicts of interest. For the true science on climate change, we can refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or leading climatologist James Hansen. From these reliable sources, we can learn about the accelerating, large-scale melting of glaciers and ice caps around the world, which are producing sea-level rise that will increasingly inundate coastal settlements of hundreds of millions of people around the world and lead to mass migrations. We can read about other dire consequences of continued CO2 increase, including the rapid and dangerous acidification of the oceans, the drastic increase in severe or catastrophic weather events, the loss of habitat or the extinction of

yet another species, which, like us, depends on an intricately balanced ecosystem. Despite all this, some remain unconvinced that man’s activities are the cause. They point to apparent but irrelevant discrepancies, such as the times in Earth’s distant past when the temperature, the level of CO2 and the overall climate were much different. However, scientists are able to determine the source of C02 by its particular signature of carbon isotopes. Proof that the recent dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human activity lies in the unique signature of isotopes associated with CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The growing concentrations of corporate wealth and power of late have unduly influenced government policy and undermined our democracy and our ability to tackle urgent problems such as climate change. Examples abound, such as Big Oil’s effect on the congressional Keystone Pipeline votes, where we saw that Congress members who received the most contributions from fossil fuel companies were the ones pushing for fast approval of the pipeline. And fossil fuel companies have used the profits from our energy purchases to fund an orchestrated media campaign denying climate change, simply because it’s in their business interest. This propaganda is what’s producing much of the confusion, even among segments of government, and this has forestalled actions to reduce fossil fuel use. The issue has become so politicized that many conservatives refuse to act. It’s frustrating and ironic because, as we waste precious time with this prolonged partisan “debate,” governments everywhere are preparing for the effects of climate change. Our own Defense Department views climate change as a major threat to stability and peace and is preparing steps to deal with it. The Saudi minister of energy has come out

with a statement recognizing climate change and the need for everyone, including oil-rich nations, to act. Major world religions have issued statements describing man-made climate change as a moral and ethical issue with potentially catastrophic effects on future generations. The consequences of global warming and other aspects of climate change represent possibly the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. But there’s still time to act. The actions individuals can take include using renewable energy, reducing their energy use and recycling. This is helping, but efforts must also be taken by government and business. Government action is needed to stop encouraging fossil fuel use through oil subsidies and through failing to build the true costs into the pricing and use of carbon-based energy. With every gallon of gas we burn, we put numerous toxins, including excess CO2, into the air, causing pollution, health problems and ultimately, large-scale climate changes. But energy producers do not pay for these things — the costs are “socialized’ while business profits are privatized. To reduce use of fossil fuels and spur movement toward clean, alternative energy, we need to implement a long-overdue carbon fee, phased in over several years to allow people to adjust to it. Since recession-weary consumers don’t want to pay more for energy, H.R. 3242, which would impose a carbon fee at the point of production or first point of sale, proposes that 80 percent of the money go back to consumers via dividends. I urge everyone to ask their representatives to support this Save Our Climate Act. Tony Giordano, adjunct college instructor and research consultant in social science, is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby, Sierra Club and the Monmouth County Cool Cities Partnership.

OPED, APRIL 21, 2O12

Earth Day: Humans must stop burning things that make the world hotter By Marshall Saunders Editor's note: April 22 is the 42nd anniversary of what is often called the birth of the modern environmental movement. This is one of four essays in which San Diegans discuss the need for vigilance in environmental law enforcement, science, education and legislative action. As I watched the Masters golf tournament earlier this month, I noticed something missing from the familiar scenery at Augusta National – the colorful azaleas that usher in springtime in the southern U.S. Throughout the nation, we experienced an unusually warm March – 15,000 temperature records were set – and the azaleas in central Georgia peaked long before Bubba Watson hit his first tee shot at the PGA’s first major or the year. If early azaleas were the only thing to worry about, it wouldn’t matter. But they’re just the latest canary in the coal mine warning us that something is terribly amiss with the Earth’s climate. On Earth Day, our planet has a message for us: Stop burning things that turn up the global thermostat or the world human civilization has known and come to rely on will cease to exist. Just last fall, the International Energy Agency said we have less than five years to reverse course before we lock in the infrastructure that will make it impossible to keep global temperatures at levels that are safe and sustainable. “The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA, said. “If we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the

minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.” At a climate-change conference in London last month, scientists warned we could reach a tipping point this decade, after which the warming process will be irreversible. What has many of those scientists alarmed are the feedback loops being reached – thawing of the Siberian permafrost that contains twice as much carbon dioxide as what’s currently in our atmosphere, droughts that are converting rain forests from carbon sinks to carbon emitters, loss of Arctic Sea ice allowing more heat from the sun to be absorbed. If we reach the point where climate change escalates beyond our ability to stop it, the world that awaits our children and grandchildren will be marked by food and water shortages, rising seas that displace hundreds of millions of people, and storms that are ever more frequent and severe. It’s a world where, at midcentury, 9 billion people will be clamoring for ever-dwindling food and water, producing instability and turmoil on a scale we’ve never seen. There is another equally important tipping point, which is the point where our nation reaches the critical mass for the political will to enact policies that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we have,

essentially, is a race between two tipping points, and the winner of that race will determine the fate of our world. Given what the scientists are telling us, we must move forward on the political will tipping point with all deliberate speed. We must enact, in this Congress or the next, legislation that accomplishes the following: •Quickly weans the United States and other nations off our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. •Protects our fragile economy, which is just now emerging from a debilitating recession. •Uses a market-based solution that motivates the private sector, rather than the government, to be the driving force in the transition to clean energy. •Is simple and transparent so that the general public can understand and support it. •Protects U.S. businesses from unfair foreign competition. •Motivates other nations to follow suit with similar policies.

Amazingly, a bill that meets all these criteria has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242). It places a gradually increasing tax on carbon-based fuels and returns the revenue from that fee to all Americans, thereby protecting households from rising energy costs stemming from the carbon tax. Even if Stark’s bill is not passed in this Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate must begin to discuss in earnest legislation like H.R. 3242 and be prepared to bring up a bipartisan bill early in the next Congress. As they said in the movie “Apollo 13,” failure is not an option. I can live without azaleas at the Masters. The question is whether our grandchildren can live with the planet we leave behind. Saunders is founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby, a Coronado-based organization that seeks solutions to global warming.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 18, 2012

Carbon fee An April 13 Journal-World article gave us great news: Kansas is leading the nation in current wind energy production! But along with the good news came a warning: Unless Congress extends the wind energy production tax credit, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s likely the wind will soon be knocked right out of our sails. Hopefully our Members of Congress will vote to extend this tax credit. Even better if our political leaders would vote for carbon fee and dividend legislation. By placing a tax on carbon at its source (well, mine, port of entry) and then steadily increasing this fee each year, renewable energy would receive a clear, consistent market signal. This would encourage entrepreneurs and investors to invest fully into the green energy economy, with an estimated 4.5 million new jobs as another attractive dividend!

Carbon fee and dividend also shields the poor and middle class from undue economic hardship by returning all the tax collected to American households on an equitable basis. With this legislation, 70 percent of households would actually receive more than they would pay for the increased cost of clean energy. Sen. Roberts, Sen. Moran, Rep. Yoder and Rep. Jenkins, I sincerely hope you will extend the wind energy production tax AND also vote for carbon fee and dividend legislation. This is your chance to ensure Kansas continues to lead the way in wind production, and also leads the way in downright clever thinking. Lynate Pettengill Lawrence

OPED, APRIL 14, 2012

There’s much to discuss Last Saturday’s Views page contained five articles presenting various viewpoints on the Marcellus Shale as a run-up to today’s Public Issues Forum “Marcellus Shale: What Does it Mean for Us?” Interesting points were raised but, unfortunately, there was no mention of the real issue with using the natural gas buried in the Marcellus Shale: it is simply another carbon-based fossil fuel. When burned, natural gas, like coal and oil, releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The result, as has been scientifically understood and accepted for more than 100 years, is climate change and global warming. We are already seeing the harmful effects of our fossil-fuel-based economy with new and stronger evidence every day. All predictions are that climate change will get progressively worse if we continue to burn all the coal, oil

and gas we can produce while using the atmosphere as an open sewer to receive the carbon waste. The only way to forestall the dire predictions from coming true is to use less carbon fuel. The natural gas in the shale is not a “bridge fuel” and is only marginally cleaner than coal and oil. It is another form of carbon fuel that could seriously affect life on Earth. We must use less of it in all forms. We should invest in creating the clean and renewable energy sources of the future; not in the harmful fuels of the past. In the process, we will create jobs, build a sustainable economy for the future and leave a livable planet for the generations that follow. Accomplishing this is the discussion we should be having. Bob Potter Boalsburg

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 12, 2012

Re: Titanic's sinking pervades our culture, Editorial, April 10 Are we living on the planet Titanic? That is the question we should be asking ourselves this week. Thanks to the Star editors for pointing out just how foolish it is to take nature — and our atmosphere — for granted. Just as those on the Titanic couldn’t believe it would sink, and so many drowned because the builders didn’t provide enough lifeboats, that’s happening today, too. Scientists are telling us we must reduce carbon emissions — drastically and quickly. Yet politicians are not listening and instead our emissions keep going up. A fee on carbon use would help us get the ship turned around before we hit the point of irreversible climate change. We like the ease with which we live in a fossil fuelled economy — but it can’t last. The sooner we steer the ship away from disaster, the better. Politicians will only take action when they hear it from the people. So tell your MP and MPP now to put a price on carbon. Our future and our children’s future depend on it. Lyn Adamson, Toronto You link hubris to our ineptitude to act on climate change. I agree but I still have to ask: is hubris strong enough? The makers of the Titanic were ill-informed. Contrast that to the current climate debacle with the vast majority of climate scientists (97 per cent at last count) screaming “beware the icebergs!” We are not. I think “stupid” is more apt. Ian Edwards, Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 12, 2012

A hot wake-up call Regarding “It’s already been a very recordbreaking hot year,” (utsandiego.com, April 9): It took Australians a rash of bush fires to convince them that climate change was something they had to act on. They passed a carbon tax, a policy that economists widely agree is the simplest, cheapest, most effective way to deal with the problem.

Hopefully, this record-breaking winter will be our wake-up call. Perhaps, like Australians, we as a people will finally come to terms with our role in humanity’s dangerous experiment with the atmosphere. And hopefully, like the Australians, we will adopt an efficient and logical policy to make fossil carbon reflect its true cost. Daniel Richter La Jolla

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 9, 2012

Titanic truths This month's 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic contains a warning for us all. In 1912, some of the world's wealthiest people were enjoying the maiden voyage of a ship described as unsinkable. Steaming at full speed into an area known to contain icebergs, her captain was more interested in a fast sailing time than safety. When disaster struck, there were not enough lifeboats, and the chances of survival depended on whether you were travelling first class or third. In 2012, the world is sailing full steam

ahead, with our captains assuring us that our way of life is unsinkable. Wealthy nations continue to enjoy their luxuries, unable to imagine why they should consume less. Yet, Mother Nature has given us warning signals in the form of rising global temperatures and extreme weather events, all of which we choose to ignore. And we still pay insufficient regard to Steamship Earth's poorest passengers. So, should we reduce speed and change course, or just carry on? Dave Carson Dundas, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

We're paying the price for fossil fuels dependence Regarding Robert Samuelson’s column of April 2, “Energy vs. environment: Can we strike a balance?” I would heartily agree that we need to strike a balance between energy needs and the environment. The problem that Samuelson overlooks is that this country has been tipping the balance in favor of energy for decades, and we’re now paying the price for that lack of foresight and discipline. What price? For one, rapidly rising energy prices because we’ve been dependent far too long on increasingly scarce and toxic fossil fuels while delaying aggressive movement to renewable energy. Example: We continue to provide outdated and senseless subsidies to fossil fuel companies, making it harder for renewables to be cost competitive. Last week’s attempt to end these subsidies failed as energy companies continue their corrupting and

unacceptable hold on Congress. The other price we pay with our stubborn dependence on dirty fossil fuels for most of our energy needs is the significant and widespread destruction of the natural environment, which we and all creatures rely on for life-giving sustenance. Global warming/climate change is merely one aspect of that destruction. Fortunately, as urgent as the situation is, there’s still time to take effective action. Develop clean renewable sources; conserve energy; end fossil fuel subsidies; stop building oil pipelines, and tax carbon use to recoup the social costs. These actions would strike a better, more sustainable balance for the long term, so that our children and grandchildren will not suffer for our greed and shortsightedness. Tony Giordano Middletown

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 7, 2012

Put a price on carbon emissions Our emission of greenhouse gases is changing the climate at an extreme rapid rate. We are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide at two parts per million per year. The last time the concentration of carbon dioxide increased this much, it took 10,000 years. As your article of April 9 points out, this results in some rather strange (and worrisome) weather. The good news about climate change is that it is caused by humans. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re in charge and we know how to be in charge. We just need the right policy to ensure a stable climate for our children. We should start by removing the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. We also

need a price on carbon emissions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; starting at $15 per ton the first year and increasing $10 per ton each successive year. Finally, to protect American industry from foreign competition we need border adjustments. Together, these measures will restore price integrity to the markets. They will increase private investment in low-carbon technologies, incentivize efficiency, and begin the desperately needed reduction of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. It will put us on a path to a more livable planet. Ross Astoria Kenosha

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 5, 2012

Federal budget ignores the environment The Conservatives want to save the taxpayers money and move towards a more limited government, yet they did not cut fossil fuel subsidies of $1.4 billion annually, and climate change is only mentioned twice as an afterthought in the budget. From this budget announcement, there were no plans on how Canada is to transition away from a fossil-based economy towards renewable energy that was strongly urged by the International Energy Agency in November 2011. However, the Conservatives did manage to cut Environment Canada by more than $150 million over the next three years. They also

cut the National Roundtable for the Environment and the Economy, our federal voice for sustainable economic development. In the fall of 2011, NRTEE reported that climate change is going to cost our economy $5 billion a year by 2020. It looks like the Conservatives "picked a winner" in fossil fuels and the loser is the environment. This is not an impressive budget. Cathy Orlando Project Manager, Citizens Climate Lobby Canada Greater Sudbury

EDITORIAL, APRIL 4, 2012

Climate change: It’s like weather on steroids By Judy Fahys Utah is suffering a kind of snow whiplash because of recent extremes. Last year, the state with the “greatest snow on Earth” was true to its name. At the Alta Guard Station in Little Cottonwood Canyon, about 553 inches fell where 495 inches has been the norm during the past 66 years. This winter, the exact opposite occurred. In early April, with two weeks left in the official snow season, the state was on track to have the least snowy year on record — or just slightly more than the all-time low — with just 315 inches of snowfall for the season. Climate scientists resist talking about the short term, like the whiplash trends of the past two seasons. They insist that’s too little data to make a generalization about climate trends, which are normally viewed in the context of 30 y ears or more. Still, the recent extremes here and elsewhere — like the heat records broken last month and last year’s intense tornado season — fall into the patterns predicted for a warming world, for climate change. To help understand the concepts, a video from the National Center for Atmospheric Research offers an unexpected analogy — baseball — explaining how greenhouse gases are affecting the world’s climate, acting like the steroids of the climate system. Scientist Gerald “Jerry” Meehl tells how an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by humans is altering climate behavior and statistics. The “weather on steroids” analogy originated with Jeff Masters, Anthony Broccoli and other climate scientists. The video was developed by Noah Besser and produced [and copyrighted] by UCAR Communications for AtmosNews: NCAR & UCAR Science.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, APRIL 1, 2012

Environmentalists are free-market fans, too A recent letter accused environmentalists of being wishful thinkers, lacking solutions to the climate/energy crisis. I'm an environmentalist. I'm also a freemarket advocate. And I count on modern-day energy. I see a sweet spot where energy production, environmental protection and economic prosperity intersect. Any right, left or middle-of-the-road economist will tell you: That sweet spot exists in market integrity. Include in the price of fossil fuels their costs to society: health care (asthma from smog), road congestion, climate change (from too much carbon dioxide), military (from our need to protect oil interests in the Middle East) and regulations. Let the free market do the rest. Watch as U.S. innovation fine-tunes wind turbines, adopts Morocco's underground energy storage ideas and creates a smarter energy grid. Delight in the enthusiasm of investors who see more green in green. Celebrate as big

investors bet big on clean-energy projects. Say bye-bye to the idea of government trying to play the investor game. Take pride in renewed U.S. leadership on humanity's biggest problem â&#x20AC;&#x201D; global warming and climate change. How about this: Tax what you burn, not what you earn. We learned in Richmond, back in the days when the cigarette tax went into effect, that people stop using things that cost more money. Do we want more income? Stop taxing income. Do we want less pollution? Start taxing pollution. Elegant. Simple. Brilliant. Congress is currently sitting on the Save Our Climate Act. It is in the Ways and Means Committee, waiting for our congressmen and -women to champion it. I'm ready for congressional climate champions! How about you? Ellie Sparks, Citizens Climate Lobby, Richmond Chapter

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 30, 2012

It was hot out – and it’s our fault Re The hottest March day ever recorded in the city (March 23) This brief front-page article reported the bare fact summarized in its title, but had no room for context or comment. Global warming due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is a real threat and it has begun. Scientists agree on this. A study of scientific articles on global climate change from 1993 to 2003 found all 928 supported the consensus view that it was caused by human activities. Why, then, have we heard or read that “the science is not settled?” First, journalists may seek “balance” and find someone to speak against the mainstream view even if that spokesperson is not well-qualified. Second, there have been very effective PR campaigns, funded by fossil

fuel companies, sowing doubts about climate change science. At the Vancouver meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last month, a panel was convened entitled “Unmuzzling Canadian Scientists: How to Reopen the Discourse.” Canadian government scientists have been directed not to talk about their work to the media. Journalists have to submit their questions for review to a media relations office and might still be denied. So perhaps it’s not surprising that David Phillips, senior climatologist at Environment Canada, offered no comment on the 27 C (80 F) high in Hamilton beyond the exclamation: “That is incredible.” Jeremy Woodley Dundas

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 29, 2012

Economic expansion over environmental costs Re: "It ain't feasible being green" -- March 20. Ezra Levant is a zealot of that old-time religion of big oil and climate change denial. He worships at the altar of economic expansion regardless of environmental cost and bows to the high priests of oil profits, cheap energy and excessive consumption of all that is available. As he says, the point of any zealot is to have an external enemy to blame. Levant's Satan is Dalton McGuinty and, by association, all climate scientists and all Ontarians who understand the science of human-caused global warming. Support of non-fossil energy sources is one of the deadly sins in his eyes. Levant's is certainly a perverse faith, not a true religion, a superstition, properties he imagines for the knowledge that is the foundation for all green energy programs.

He attacks that knowledge with some pseudo-scientific innuendo and some gross misrepresentations of Ontario's programs. Levant's false religion is a superstition that is perverse to all humans except his idols. It denies the rights of the poor and future generations, while pretending to be their defence. Here's hoping that Levant's religion will not seduce any new converts, and that his fellow-travellers will find the truth and defect en masse. Let us not be afraid to invest a little of what we don't need for the sake of our descendants. Len Wiseman, Lively

OPED, MARCH 29, 2012

p Jim F. Chamberlain: I agree that alarmism is out of place in every age. ... But the physics are well-known, and the dots are easily connected.

Energy Transition: Reasonable Approaches Needed By JIM F. CHAMBERLAIN A recent book by Sen. James Inhofe tries to debunk concern about climate change by casting aspersions on everyone from the United Nations to George W. Bush. Unfortunately, he refutes climate alarmism with his own alarmism and conspiracy

theories - labeling a cap-and-trade proposal as the "largest tax increase in American history," calling the EPA a "job-destroying agency" and implying that the United Nations wants to take over the world.

The book uses a congressional study to claim that America's combined energy resources are the largest on Earth, but it fails to mention that even if all recoverable oil in United States were refined, that amount represents only a 24-year supply at the current rate of consumption. (Most of our energy reserves are in coal.) It also notes that Oklahoma's unemployment rate is lower than the national average but fails to point out that government, not energy, is the largest employer. I agree that alarmism is out of place in every age. The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, as is Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear." Most Americans recognize fiction for what it is. But the physics are well-known, and the dots are easily connected. A CO2 molecule is very efficient at trapping heat; our atmosphere depends on it. Increased oil/coal consumption results in increased CO2 release that has to go somewhere - pooled in the atmosphere, taken up by plants or acidifying the ocean. Americans have now spent years of just observing the data themselves - daffodils blooming earlier in the spring, trees changing color later in the fall, glaciers retreating at Glacier National Park, the southern pine beetle expanding its territory of destruction in winters no longer cold enough to freeze them out. Texas will need to plan for many more years of drought, partly due to increased evaporation. Sea levels have risen since 1900 by about eight inches. These things are easy to measure simply by reading a gauge or marking the calendar, with no commentary or innuendo. Americans deserve sound, reasonable energy policies. A newly introduced measure in Congress - The Save Our Climate Act of 2011 (House Resolution 3242) - would apply a fee on carbon-based fuels, return most of

the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, and use the remaining portion for deficit reduction. The fee, placed on carbon at the point of entry into the economy, begins at a rate of $10 per ton in the first year and increases by $10 per ton each year. Every dollar that is collected, over the first $10 per ton, is awarded back to the public in an annual dividend check. The predictable price on carbon gives businesses a needed level of certainty and sends a clear price signal to shift investments, and thus new job creation, away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The benefits to the nation are manifold: Renewable energy can compete in the marketplace, national security is enhanced with less reliance on imported oil, the U.S. has a chance to become a world leader in newgeneration energy and the atmosphere is spared from more greenhouse gases. The benefits to the state of Oklahoma are also net positive, as this legislation favors the usage of our immense natural resources of wind, solar power and natural gas, the last of these being less carbon-intensive than either coal (for electricity) or oil (for transportation). God created Earth's atmosphere, formed (over eons) in just the right balance for human and non-human species and saw that "it was good." But we cannot presume upon his kindness without our own proper stewardship. Psalm 19 prays: "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!" and St. Paul cautions that "we must not put the Lord to the test" (1 Corinthians, 10). Carbon fee-and-dividend will both protect our planet's atmosphere and make the U.S. a world leader in renewable energy innovation. Jim F. Chamberlain is a Catholic priest and environmental scientist who lives and works in Norman.

OP-ED, MARCH 26, 2012

Oil and other carbon-based fuels are not the answer to energy woes By Barbara Eckstein I always cringe when, in the movie “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray steps in the same puddle over and over as he relives the same day. I see myself rushing to the next thing and the next, oblivious to what’s right under my feet, slow to learn that the same behavior — here’s a surprise! — produces the same messy results. Recently, I received an email from Mark Reynolds, executive director of the bipartisan - nonpartisan group called Citizens’ Climate Lobby. I’m a member of CCL. In Reynolds’s message, the recurring “Groundhog Day” scenario is America awakening to another spike in the cost of oil and climbing gas prices. What to do? Step in the same puddle over and over and curse our fate? Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, America has vowed to foster energy independence. Yet it’s 2012, we’re still at the mercy of petroleum merchants, and the price of gas is heading up and over $4. We want to believe that more drilling in U.S. territory and the Keystone XL Pipeline will solve our problem at the pump. It seems like it should. But it doesn’t solve either our short-term or long-term need for energy and affordable transportation because the price of oil is determined on a global market and sold to the highest bidder. And there are more bidders now than there were in the 1970s. Since April 2009, the number of oil rigs operating on U.S. lands and waters has quadrupled and U.S. dependence

on foreign oil has fallen from 65 to 45 percent in 2011. Still the price of gasoline goes up because of global demand and reduced production in oil-rich countries. The United States consumes 20 percent of the world’s oil but only holds 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Energy independence for the U.S. can’t mean oil independence and it can’t mean charging ahead in the same old ways. OK, so what about the Canadian oil? If we built that Keystone XL Pipeline wouldn’t we have our own oil, at least North American oil? You’d think so. But no. The opposite is true. The oil produced in Alberta’s tar sands is currently landlocked, producing a surplus for Midwest refineries in the U.S. that has held down the price. If the Keystone XL Pipeline is built and that Canadian oil is piped down to the Gulf of Mexico, it enters the global market and goes to the highest bidder. The drop in Midwest supplies, says analysts, will increase the price at the pump by another 10-20 cents per gallon. So, how do we wake up and, like Bill Murray, look at the big mud puddle under our feet, and walk around it? The only way to protect our economy and our children’s future from the volatility of the oil market and the mess carbon extraction and use makes of our world is to reduce our demand. And the only way to reduce our demand is first to recognize that we can’t rush from one thing to another oblivious to the mess right under our feet.

In the past, higher gas prices have proven a powerful incentive to reduce fuel consumption. And those who could afford new vehicles bought smaller more efficient ones. But we have relapsed when the price of oil has gone down, buying inefficient vehicles again. The changing price at the pump has not gotten us out of our “Groundhog Day” scenario. So CCL proposes that we set a steady price on carbon and carbon pollution that reflects the real cost to all concerned. Pricing carbon as a way to stabilize our personal finances and national economy may seem counter-

intuitive, but not if this controlled increase in fuel costs, a carbon fee, is re-tuned to the public. Legislation to provide the incentive for a transition away from fossil fuels has been introduced in the U.S. House as the Save Our Climate Act HR 3242. It places a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels — oil, coal and gas — and returns most of the revenue to all Americans in equal shares. Have a look. See what you think. And while you’re thinking, maybe you could literally walk around some mud puddles instead of driving through them.

Barbara Eckstein is a member of Iowa City Climate Advocates that meets the first Tuesday of every month at 7 p.m. in Trinity Episcopal Church.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

Wind support Congratulations to U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas for requesting an extension of the wind energy production tax credit that expires at the end of 2012. In a late February letter sent to Senate majority and minority leaders, he and 11 colleagues appealed for a stable tax environment in which the wind industry can operate and develop. I personally believe we must move toward renewable energy sources. I honestly feel a fee on carbon-based fuels is the quickest way to do so, but with private interests dominating legislative action on carbon fuels, it is probably going to take baby steps. Until we, the public, demand action on carbon, I

think we have to let wind and solar incubate in the marketplace. This bipartisan effort lead by Moran, a Republican, and Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, is encouraging. In their letter they suggest that failure to extend the production tax credit could destabilize the industry before it can demonstrate cost competitiveness. With 400 wind turbine manufacturing facilities in the U.S., tens of thousands of jobs are on the line. Stability will set a path for the wind industry to move toward a market-based system. Tony Schmidt Lawrence

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 26, 2012

Global demand affects gas prices in the U.S. Competition is the solution Prices at the pump will keep rising, because of global demand, and also because we are getting oil from more difficult places — deep water, shale and sand — and there is less and less of it. [“Global demand affects gas prices,” Business, March 23.] Competition is the solution. Electric battery and solar and wind power industries are expanding, and the cost of their products is steadily dropping. Electricity from solar

and wind is already cheaper than conventional electricity in many places. A tax on oil, even if revenue is returned directly to consumers, would level the playing field, help alternatives industries compete against the mature and well-subsidized oil industry and put us on the path to affordable energy. Louise Stonington Seattle

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 25, 2012

Re: Our mercurial spring, Editorial, March 23 Contrary to your editorial, those worried about global warming, which includes 95 per cent of the world's climate scientists, have taken no comfort from the cold winter in eastern Europe. For example, Julia Sligo, chief scientist at the U.K. government's weather office, says that the reduction in Arctic Sea ice has led to the recent colder, drier weather in Europe, and this could exacerbate future

water shortages. Unbridled carbon emissions will only make this worse. We need to put a price on carbon and accelerate our investment in non-carbon energy sources before we pass the tipping point. A latte on a Toronto patio in March has already come at a high price for the planet. Doug Pritchard Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 23, 2012

Newton: Focus energy policy on carbon In his March 16 column, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Key stone pipeline was a missed opportunity ,â&#x20AC;? Sen. Scott Brown never once mentions climate change. This despite the fact that the International Energy Agency warns that five more y ears of business as usual on energy guarantees that global warming will exceed the level deemed safe by scientists. We need to take immediate action to halt the ever-increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Putting a gradually increasing fee on the carbon in fossil fuels would guarantee increasing prices for coal, oil and gas. Returning 100 percent of proceeds in

equal amounts to households would shield consumers from rising energy costs. Businesses would get the energy -cost certainty they have been asking for and massive private investment in conservation and alternative energy would result, providing a chance at stabilizing the climate before it spins out of control. In short, a carbon fee and dividend is a nobrainer. GARY RUCINSKI Newton The writer is the founder of the Boston Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 23, 2012

The dark side of global warming Re: Warming: what's not to like? Letter, March 9 Mankind adapted fairly well to the extinction of dinosaurs because our species came on the scene millions of years after their extinction. If only Claude Gannon consulted with the science. If he did, he would learn that while a warmer climate certainly seems like a blessing, it will actually cause havoc in our biosphere. We are already starting to see an increase in extreme weather events: floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, which compromise

lives and cost millions. Climate change is affecting agriculture, which depends on a stable climate, forestry and fishing. We can expect coastal flooding — the list goes on. It’s happening now, and will only get worse. What kind of world are we handing over to our kids? Think climate change isn’t personal? Think again. Lauren Bates Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 22, 2012

Need civil discussion on climate Amid the questionable reasoning and unhelpful sarcasm in Charles Krauthammer's commentary "Here's seaweed in your tank" (Monday), it is disturbing to find not even a passing reference to the consequences of our fossil-fuel consumption. I don't know whether Krauthammer thinks he knows better than the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists or whether he thinks we need not be concerned about the world we leave our descendants.

If conservatives showed any interest in conserving the only ecosystem we have evolved to inhabit, or, if you prefer, that God created for us, then perhaps we could have the kind of civil discussion needed to make the hard decisions. We need to find ways to consume less fossil fuel, not more. This is physics, not ideology. The only effective solution for the near term will be some form of carbon tax. Alan Windle Philadelphia

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 19, 2012

Drilling for oil is not in our national interest In the past weeks, I've read the paper to follow the General Assembly's attempts to restrict access to abortion. I appreciate your coverage on this important topic. But, I read and reread in disbelief your editorial, "Politics and Gasoline, Promises, Promises," in which you endorse increasing U.S. oil production. Drilling for oil makes no sense economically or environmentally. We need to move into clean, renewable energy and leave the fossil fuel era behind us. Everyone agrees that to disentangle ourselves from wars in the Middle East, we need to stop importing oil from the Middle East. But drilling for oil here is not the answer. Oil in North America and

off-shore is not easy to extract. We put ourselves at huge environmental risks for a short term solution. The oil will run out. It is neither a viable nor responsible option. The real solution is a clean energy economy. President Obama knows this. This is why he has not and will not approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It is not in our national interest. As a new reader, I am thankful for the forum you offer Richmond. I look forward to reading your coverage of the presidential election this fall. Christy Escher. Richmond.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 18, 2012

Concerned about climate change Note: The following is reprinted from a speech given by the author at a “Night with the candidates” event held by the York Daily Record on March 12th at York College of Pennsylvania. I am a volunteer with the York chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby and I live in Conewago Township. Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight and for being here. My biggest concern is climate change. We’ll hear a lot of different concerns tonight but without a stabile climate to live in, these other issues won’t matter much. We can see the effects of climate change on a daily basis. The scientific community has been warning policy makers for decades [about] the implications of dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Now we can see these dire predictions played out on the evening news. From “winter” tornadoes ripping across the Midwest to extreme drought plaguing farmers and ranchers in Texas, scientists have warned us of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events we can expect to see in a warming world. [The year] 2011 saw a record number of these extreme weather disasters including record flooding in many areas of Pennsylvania. Damages from the disasters cost the U.S. economy over $55 billion dollars. Scientists have warned us of tipping points. Passing these gives us little hope of stabilizing our climate. They warn we are

rapidly approaching the point of no return. Change seems to be happening faster than the science can keep up with, [with] NASA’s James Hansen saying "Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth." But with the entire world experiencing change on a daily basis, Washington continues with business as usual. I’m here tonight to hear how each of you plans to address this critical situation. I don’t want to hear about hoaxes or scientists involved in conspiracy theories. I’d like to hear your thoughts on how you might plan on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, because the reality of the situation is this: there are record droughts and flooding worldwide, the Arctic permafrost is melting, sea levels are rising, coral reefs are dying off from warming oceans, the Arctic is expected to be ice free in just a few years, land-based ice is melting at a rate of 500 billion tons a year, and global temperatures are rising. We have a responsibility to our young people and to future generations to fix this problem we have created. Thank you. Jon Clark Conewago Township

OPED, March 17, 2012

Orrin Hatch, fossilized By David Folland When I read Sen. Orrin Hatch’s op-ed (“Boost U.S. oil production,” Opinion, March 4), it evoked the picture of a man speeding down the freeway with head turned backwards, checking to be sure no one was coming up from behind. Indeed, looking to the past, it would appear that expanding oil exploration, as Hatch asserted, would be the best way to lower gas prices. However, ahead of us lies a serious pileup, and we are going to join the crash if we don’t turn our heads and look forward. That accident is climate change from the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses we are putting into the atmosphere when we burn gasoline, coal and natural gas. If we had listened to the traffic reports we would have realized that we are approaching a horrible pileup. About 150 years ago it was determined that carbon dioxide has the ability to trap heat. It’s like a blanket over the earth, holding in the warming radiation from the sun. NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen published a report 31 years ago predicting that Earth would warm and the climate would change if we continued to burn fossil fuels, causing extremes of both drought and precipitation. While scientists investigate the complexities of the warming planet, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the climate has changed. We shouldn’t be surprised by the driest December on record in Salt Lake City in 2011; the wettest spring on record before that; this mild winter in Utah, unlike

any in recent memory; and millions of acres of Western forests dying because it doesn’t get cold enough in the winter to limit pine beetle growth. Why would Hatch and others in Congress cling on to the notion that we must continue to support fossil fuels despite their damaging effects to the future of the Earth? One answer might lie in the tremendous influence of the fossil fuel industry. They have spent enormous sums on lobbyists and direct payments to members of Congress. When the Senate voted on whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, the measure was defeated by four votes. Senators voting for the pipeline received $27.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, roughly three times that of the senators who voted against it. Hatch, who voted for the pipeline, has received $414,800 from fossil fuel companies since 1999. One of the most disturbing aspects of continuing to subsidize and support fossil fuels is that it is becoming clear we have the ability to transition to sustainable fuels. In his recent book Reininventing Fire, Amory Lovins meticulously outlines how this transition can occur. It would create new jobs in the green economy while achieving energy independence and enhancing national security. Lovins estimates the transition away from fossil fuels by 2050 will cost $5 trillion less than continuing to use them, while growing the economy by 150 percent.

How can we counter the enormous influence of the fossil fuel industry? Unless ordinary citizens stand up and demand an energy policy that moves us away from fossil fuels, the status quo will prevail. Currently there is a bill in Congress, the Save Our Climate Act, which would put a fee on carbon and return most of the proceeds to the American people. We need to ask our elected officials and our candidates to support this legislation. We

must find out how much money they receive from the fossil fuel industry. If we do, we may be able to stop speeding blindly down the highway and avoid the otherwise inevitable crash. David Folland is a retired Sandy pediatrician concerned about the climate outlook of the children he has cared for, and of future generations. He volunteers for Citizens Climate Lobby.

OPED, MARCH 17, 2012

Opinion: Faith Communities Care for the Planet

The Christ Congregation installed solar panels on the roof of its church on Walnut Lane, in Princeton, in 2006, and began drawing electricity from them in 2007, the first Princeton church to do so. ''We also use no air conditioning, '' says Pastor Jeffrey Mays. ''We like to say we use prayer conditioning.'' Photo courtesy of the Christ Congregation Church, Princeton

By Ellie Whitney Solar panels adorn the roof of a pretty Christ Congregation Church on Princeton’s Walnut Lane. In choosing to install them, the congregation weighed the costs, savings, installer qualifications and the necessary sacrifice of a beloved oak tree to gain the needed sunlight on the roof. But foremost in their decision were its members’ religious values, which are tied to their awareness of today’s rapidly changing climate. The congregation is concerned about global warming and understands its causes. “The energy we use in central New Jersey is derived from burning coal, a fossil fuel that ... pumps greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, resulting in global warming,” its website says. “We believe that we are obligated to stop

contributing to this pollution of God’s creation wherever possible.” On this basis, they also try to limit their use of oil and natural gas if alternatives are available. Religion and the climate have not been paired in New Jersey for long, but today, a movement of faith-based climate activism has sprung up all over the state. Dozens of other New Jersey church buildings of many denominations and at least three New Jersey synagogues are also solar-powered, and for the same reasons. One of the synagogues is Oheb Shalom in South Orange. Member Charles Wantman, who conceived and guided the project, was exuberant about it: “Next to my son, this is the most fulfilling thing I have done in my life,” he says.

Facilitating the “greening” of many houses of worship and educating their members is GreenFaith, a religious-environmental education and training program based in Highland Park. Besides advising on, and certifying, the conversion of buildings to energy efficiency and solar power, GreenFaith trains personnel from houses of worship in religion-based environmentalism. Besides houses of worship, many nonprofit groups are concerned about the climate and attract members based on ideals such as love of nature and concern for the poor and the disadvantaged. One such group is the newly launched New Jersey chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) in Lincroft. CCL was founded only three years ago, but it already has chapters all across the United States and Canada and is single-mindedly pursuing its objective: to persuade the U.S. Congress to enact effective climate legislation. Members of the Lincroft chapter have diverse faith-based motivations. Co-leader Lynn Dash, a retired clinical social worker, is guided by the Unitarian Universalists’ Seventh Principle: “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” Co-leader Mike Morton, a retired banker who lives in Brick, says that after spending 30 years of his life “working in the sheltered environment of Wall Street investment banking and being completely unaware of the contribution I’ve made to the destruction of the planet’s resources, I decided that, on retiring, I would spend the

rest of my life trying to make this a better world for future generations.” Rosemary Wright of Ocean Grove, a retired high school teacher, says she was attracted to CCL because it operates “like Gandhi, not out of anger, but in peace.” David Reskof, a retired psychiatrist from Shrewsbury, is concerned for his grandchildren: “I don’t want them to die of environmentally caused disease.” How widespread is this faith-based climate-activist movement? It is huge, encompassing all religious groups, not only in the United States but all over the world. Princeton resident Lynn Whitney, at CCL’s request, conducted an informal survey of all the religious faiths she could identify and found them all in agreement that human beings are responsible for climate disruption and environmental destruction and that time is running out. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers, Jews are all in accord — and so are Hopi Native Americans, Shintoists, Jainists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and many interfaith groups. All seem to agree that we have been given this Earth to care for and that we are doing grievous harm in many ways, but especially by using fossil fuels to excess and thereby causing global warming. In the process, we are already destroying much of creation and making life impossible for millions of our poorest brothers and sisters. Faith groups see this as a kind of blasphemy. Global warming is, according to the leaders of these organizations, the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Ellie Whitney, Ph.D., has authored many books on health and the environment, served as environmental columnist for the Tallahassee Democrat, and studied climate and energy issues since the 1980s. Now retired, she lives in East Windsor and volunteers for the Citizens Climate Lobby. Lynn Whitney is her daughter.

OPED, MARCH 16, 2012

Growing Grassroots Support for a Price on Carbon In July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead in the water. Polling revealed that support for the legislation was low and that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a politician compared a progressive activist organization supporting the carbon price, GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League(GetUp!, by the way, is also the organization that produced this moving and wildly viral video in support of marriage equality last fall). Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon price squeaked through the Australian parliament months later, sending a jolt of optimism through the global community. Like other climate bills, it ended up being pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive an SUV through, but one of the largest percapita carbon emitters in the world was clearly willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate action. The skeptics had been proven wrong. Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem hardened to federal policy after the American Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in 2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the

mantra Democratic Congress members and environmentalists alike are fond of repeating these days. But like crocus bulbs shifting under the frozen ground, a movement has been building for federal climate policy. And the time is right: belief in climate change among the general public has just taken an upward turn, according to Brookings. Partly due to the pressure applied by groups like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other leaders are beginning to warm up the public on carbon pricing. NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen has been promoting fee-and-dividend legislation for years, recently appearing on MSNBC with Treehugger’s Brian Merchant. Soon after, theWashington Post editorial page released a small flurry of pieces on carbon taxation. First, that famous tag-team, Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, along with former Republican House members Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest , endorsed a carbon price in an op-ed: We could slash our debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our health and environment. This policy would strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies clean — and raise a lot of revenue.

Then the paper’s fickle editorial board endorsed Pete Stark’s existing carbon tax bill (H.R. 3242 – the Save Our Climate Act) currently languishing in committee. Leadership on the issue from politicians, even from wellknown liberals like Stark, is sorely needed. Especially when the public, for better or worse, forms opinions based on their statements. The LA Times editorial page, too, has been drumming up support for a carbon tax. Their neighbor to the north, British Columbia, passed a carbon tax three years ago and the evidence of its success is a hopeful sign. Just do it. Put a price on carbon, one way or another. How much is levied, and where and exactly how it’s levied, aren’t as important as the principle that we all pay something for emissions. In Canada — and in California — it will take time, and trial and error, to get climate change regulations off the ground and working. It’s difficult, yes. Complicated too. But it’s not economic or political suicide. One can’t deny some heavy lifting is in order, but with luck we can learn from our past missteps. The environmental community will need to better communicate its goals, think outside the insular lobbying strategies of yore, and truly work with groups across the political and interest spectrum from unions and environmental justice groups to business and religious leaders, and especially Republicans. That last point may seem like a joke in the current political climate but behind the scenes, many Republicans do support a carbon tax. David Roberts of Grist has even gone as far as calling carbon pricing a fundamentally conservative policy. Case in point: Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic advisor Gregory Mankiw is a strong proponent of a carbon tax, and his observations about the resistance to the policy reflect Roberts’ own: In the debate over global climate change, there is a yawning gap that needs to be bridged. The gap is not between environmentalists and

industrialists, or between Democrats and Republicans. It is between policy wonks and political consultants. Among policy wonks like me, there is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D. We’re encouraged by statements from conservatives like Mankiw, Boehlert and Gilchrest, but what’s really moving us these days is the growing army of committed citizen lobbyists around the country we’ve seen jump into the lion’s den. They’re inspiring us to rethink our rote pessimism, and the idea that the general public can’t be rallied around this issue. Regular folks from Tallahassee, Florida to Kansas City, Missouri are spending evenings and weekends and taking time off work to visit their representatives and senators, write letters to their town newspapers and build support for climate legislation at the local level. And their work is sophisticated enough to rival the big guns. When Citizens Climate Lobby leaders in one of our local chapters visited the office of a powerful Republican in Congress to make the case for a carbon tax, they were told they were the most well-prepared citizen lobbying group the staffer had ever seen. Citizens Climate Lobby operates on the belief that politicians don’t create political will: they respond to it. It’s both an overwhelming and empowering idea. We’re appealing to the highest common denominator in people, motivating politicians to cast off their cowardice and soul-search on the legacy they’re leaving the planet with. Erica Flock is a co-leader of the DC chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan volunteer group dedicated to helping people exercise their personal and political power for climate action.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 16, 2012

[No title – need to get off oil] If we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate, we will be worrying about a lot more than hydro rates and countryside views in a lot less time than 100 years. Stating that wind power is not an efficient source of energy because “it always needs a parallel backup system” is no reason not to use it. Wind can provide a major portion of demand,

thus reducing our fossil burn. Increasingly, methods are being developed to store power effectively. We need to use every means possible to get off our addiction to oil. Dave Carson Dundas, Ont.

NEWS ITEM, MARCH 14, 2012

Speaker urges action against climate change About 100 people snacked on brownies Tuesday night as they listened to not-sosweet predictions about the future of climate change [at a meeting hosted by the Citizens Climate Lobby Gainesville chapter]. “The word ‘catastrophic’ is in fact what we’re talking about today,” Unity College President Stephen Mulkey told the audience in Smathers Library East. Mulkey, who was a botany professor at UF from 1996 to 2008, presented scientific evidence of climate change. His presentation, “Losing Control of the Global Thermostat — Implications for Florida, the U.S. and the World,” focused on issues of greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change. Mulkey said oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear fuel account for 90 percent of America’s energy.

The proportion of carbon dioxide emissions is climbing, he said, which is believed to be causing more frequent extreme weather events. Jessica Steele, a UF doctoral student of geography, said she took home some knowledge on the climate situation. “There were a lot of statistics and figures in there that I was unaware of,” she said. “I learned a lot.” Mulkey proposed sustainability science as the climate-change solution. This applies science from multiple disciplines to solve environmental problems. He said UF students can combat climate change in a simple way: Get involved. “Get active. Get politically active,” he said. “Get engaged in the political process.” Jenna Lyons Alligator Contributing Writer

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 13, 2012

Reduce oil consumption Here we go again. Gas prices rise, people start to change their transportation methods; then gas prices fall, and people buy gasguzzling vehicles again. Then, due to some foreign instability, gas prices skyrocket again and we repeat the cycle. Oil companies profit, and our personal incomes decline. Each cycle saps our economy. I believe it is not the price itself that hurts; it is the constant change up and down. Nobody can plan. We need stable oil prices, which can only come from reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There is a way to do this and insulate our economy at the same time. The solution is a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend. Oil companies would pay a carbon fee. So

everyone would pay a higher price at the pump. People who use more would pay more. The fee would fund a per-capita dividend, a per-person rebate, which would keep these dollars circulating in our economy. People who use less than average would get back a bigger rebate than their added costs. This market solution would drive us to permanently transition our transportation methods to more efficient choices. Let's bite the bullet and, once and for all, adopt a plan to reduce our oil consumption. In the long run, we will all be better off if we do. Anne Waymouth Madison

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 9, 2012

Break oil cycle The price of gasoline has hit $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, and many are worried we could see $5-a-gallon gas by the summer. These higher gas prices threaten to slow our economic recovery, and some politicians are citing this as a reason to open more areas up for oil drilling and to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Neither of these actions will have any immediate impact on the price at the pump. In the long run, our nation will be better off if we end our self-destructive addiction to oil, no matter where it comes from. Like the movie â&#x20AC;&#x153;Groundhog Day,â&#x20AC;? the U.S. keeps repeating the same scenario on oil that began decades ago with the first Arab embargo: A crisis somewhere in the world disrupts global oil supplies, sending prices higher and hurting our economy.

The only way to protect our economy from price shocks in the oil market is to break the cycle of dependency on oil. America must transition its automotive fleet to vehicles that run on electricity or biofuels, fuels that can be produced from clean, renewable sources. We can speed that transition with a price on carbon that makes these alternatives more attractive to consumers. Returning revenue from the carbon fee to the public will shield our economy from the impact of rising energy costs associated with the fee. To break our addiction to oil and to improve our energy and economic security, Rep. Yoder, Rep. Jenkins, Sen. Roberts and Sen. Moran should support legislation, like the Save Our Climate Act, that prices carbon. Frank Schawaller Lawrence

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 8, 2012

When science speaks Re Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Vet The Messenger (editorial, March 7): With our current federal government, it seems that ideology rules the day, not the inconvenient findings of peer-review scientists and experts in the field. If government policy is not based on evidencebased research, what does this mean for Canada? Cheryl McNamara Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 8, 2012

President Obama isn't to blame for gasoline prices When I read that President Barack Obama is responsible for the rising cost of gasoline, it raised my disbelief to a new level. Here are some facts: • Obama didn't tell you to buy a car that gets 15 miles per gallon. • If Obama had walked into the Oval Office in 2008 and lifted every moratorium on drilling and exploration, none of that oil would be available to pump into your gasguzzling SUV yet. • Once this treasure trove of oil is pumped out of U.S. territory, it will go up for sale on the world market and be sold at the going rate. If you believe that U.S. oil companies are going to sell U.S. oil to

Americans at a discounted rate, you slept through your school's lecture on free-market economy. • The U.S. has some of the cheapest gasoline in the world. If you want it cheaper, you will need to move to Venezuela, Cuba or Saudi Arabia. Then you can have a whole list of new problems to blame on Obama. If you want to do something constructive, buy a car that gets better mileage, start a car pool and let your congressmen know you want more public transportation. That's how the rest of the world copes with rising gas prices. Leigh Smith. Montpelier.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 7, 2012

Glen Ecklund: Tornadoes show need for carbon fee Dear Editor: The recent tornadoes are, unfortunately, part of a trend. As predicted decades ago by climatologists, storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, due to climate change. NOAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Climatic Data Center keeps track of the number of billion-dollar climate disasters each year (adjusted to current dollars). The numbers are striking. In the 1980s, there was an average of 1.2 such disasters per year. The last 10 years have averaged six per year. 2006 set a record of nine such disasters. 2011 shattered that record with 14! These numbers include storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and weather-related fires. In addition, we are headed for a mass extinction, as changes in temperature and rainfall alter many sensitive habitats. Lots of species cannot relocate as easily as we can.

It is urgent that we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing these changes, because it will take decades for the atmosphere to return to normal. The Carbon Fee and Dividend Act, or the similar Save Our Climate Act, would put a gradually increasing fee on fossil fuels, according to how much carbon they emit when burned. The burden on people would be reduced by returning all or most of the money to the people, in equal shares per person. International trade inequities are solved with adjustments on imports and exports, adjusting for energy cost differences. This, plus eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, would help alternative energy sources compete in the market, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving the climate at the same time. Glen Ecklund Madison

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 7, 2012

Drilling for oil just won’t fix the problem Your editorial “Still gasbags” hit the nail on the head. Thank you for taking such a rational and calm stand on the issue. You’re right — we’re at the mercy of the markets when it comes to petroleum. Drilling for more oil won’t solve the problem: World demand is just too high, and we’ll never harvest enough to bring the price down and keep it down. After all, once our domestic sources start increasing, we’ll be in competition with China and other high-demand countries who will want to buy our oil. And as long as demand is high, prices will have nowhere to go but up.

Sustainable, non-carbon-based energy is the long-term solution. We can get started right away with a carbon-fee system that promotes solar, wind and thermal energy. Like anything else, building facilities to do this may be subject to market forces, but we have tools such as the Save Our Climate act to harness those forces and start building the infrastructure. Just imagine freeing ourselves from dependence on oil, creating jobs and, at the same time, taking a big step forward to improving the outlook for our climate. Bill Nelson, Henrico

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 6, 2012

Make N.M. an Energy Leader I MUST CALL into question the apparent lack of research done prior to writing the Journal’s Feb. 13 rebuke of the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. You stated that the crude product was headed for the Gulf Coast “for shipping and refining.” But you didn’t include that the target markets are slated for export and not domestic use. You went into great detail about the Canadian environmental impact of precious habitat and wildlife, yet failed to mention Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive, agriculturally valuable and groundwater-rich Sandhills region. Regarding job creation, TransCanada’s estimate of 20,000 jobs was refuted recently by the highly esteemed Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute. Using TransCanada’s numbers, CUGLI’s calculations came in with only 5,000 temporary positions. As for job security, N.M.’s own New Energy Economy’s numbers are far more positive: ⋄ “N.M. ranks second in the nation for solar power potential and 12th for wind power potential.

⋄ The solar power industry will create an estimated 19,000 new jobs in New Mexico by 2016. This is the highest projected per capita job creation in the country. ⋄ The average wage in New Mexico is $36,700. The average clean tech job in the U.S. pays $57,786 —more than 55 percent higher.” The most worthy step we can take to help ease the transformation to new, clean energy is to support H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, which will place a fee on carbon emissions and return the proceeds to every American. Further investigation also reveals that 68 percent of new electricity capacity came from wind and solar in 2011 in the EU. While our policymakers are busy arguing about last century’s resources, we’re losing the global race to sustainability. New Mexico has what it takes to make it happen! We should be a national leader in this arena. Why not let the 20th-century fossil fuels lie and get onboard with 21st-century renewables? LISA SILVA

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

Keystone rejection right call Mark Gordon (Feb. 19) stated that the White House was “stupid” for not approving the Keystone pipeline. To the contrary, Obama’s rejection of the project was the right call. Extraction and processing of tar sands is very energy intensive, releases huge amounts of CO2, destroys vast areas of forest and kills wildlife. The pipeline would not improve our energy security since the oil is a commodity and is sold on the world market to the highest bidder. More important than the immediate environmental problems caused by this

pipeline are the long-term climatic effects of the continued use of fossil fuels. The Keystone pipeline does nothing to promote the replacement of fossil fuels with clean energy sources. We can however, by imposing a carbon tax on fossil fuels at their source, encourage private-sector investments in clean energy sources. Those taxes can be returned to all citizens in the country to offset the higher energy costs. A bill that does just this (Save Our Climate Act, HR 3242) is before Congress and should be supported. John R. DeLapp Anchorage

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

Climate Change—Science vs. Propaganda I applaud the Asbury Park Press on its recent series of investigative articles exposing the damage being done to many waterways in New Jersey, Barnegat Bay in particular. These pieces were commendable in their use of fact and science to communicate essential information on these vital issues. At the same time, I’m struck by the inconsistency between these series and your editorial stance on climate change, where you’ve printed a mix of letters and op-eds from “both sides.” The essential point that’s overlooked is that climate change is not a matter of popular political opinion, but rather an imminent catastrophe recognized by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists based on all the relevant facts. I can only hope that in the future the Press will place more weight on scientific evidence in selecting editorials to appear on climate change. The public desperately

needs to be better informed on this problem, particularly with all the distortions and propaganda out there. This past week we learned that General Motors can be added to the list of mega-corporations funding climate change-denier propaganda through the Heartland Institute. In this disinformation campaign, GM joins leading fossil fuel companies, Koch Industries, and others who apparently fear their business interests would be threatened if the public learned the truth about how our increasing carbon emissions exacerbate the ongoing man-made damage to the climate. Newspapers have a crucial role to play in helping the public distinguish science from propaganda so we can collectively take effective action before it’s too late. Tony Giordano Fair Haven, NJ

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

War with Iran won’t solve our nation’s oil dilemma Regarding the Feb. 26 letter, “Big oil, politicians manipulating public,” it appears that the writer is endorsing the idea that the U.S. should deploy its military once again, this time to prevent disruption of oil exports from Iran. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as reminders of the devastating consequences of going to war in the name of protecting our oil interests in the Middle East. In this case, however, in addition to the prospects of another protracted war, we would be provoking an unbalanced leader who is suspected of trying to develop nuclear weapons. The risk that this would represent for the U.S. and its allies cannot be overstated.

It is crucial that we begin to recognize the fact that oil reserves are limited and are rapidly being depleted. We need to look to an expanding — not contracting — future and focus on replacing finite fossil fuels with infinite, sustainable, renewable energy. Our best move is to adopt a market solution: a carbon-fee and dividend system that levies a gradually rising fee on the carbon that enters our economy in fuels and rebates the proceeds to all citizens through equal monthly dividends. This will protect consumers from increasing fuel costs, stimulate investment in renewable energy and promote the needed shift from dirty to clean energy. Mike Morton, Brick

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

Offshore drilling has unfathomed downside I’m tired of watching our political representatives in Washington, D.C., support the interests of profit-driven corporations while ignoring the interests of those of us who elected them. Last month, the fossil fuel industry was the beneficiary, as Congress approved legislation that opens the Atlantic coast to offshore drilling. Disappointingly, Rep. Jon Runyan (RMount Laurel), who “represents” many coastal communities, sided with the oil interests. To their credit, Reps. Chris Smith (R-Hamilton) and Frank LoBiondo (R-Mays Landing) both crossed the aisle and voted with all of New Jersey’s Democratic Congress members in opposing the drilling. If there were no downside, then further drilling might be justified, but this course has major negatives: the virtual inevitability of spills with attendant ecological damage, increasing carbon dioxide emissions at a time when atmospheric CO2 is already too high and rising higher, and ongoing dependency

on outside suppliers. Even if pumped from along our own shores, oil is handled by multinational, not domestic, companies, to their profit, not ours. Moreover, oil reserves are limited. We need to look to an expanding, not a contracting, future, by replacing finite fossil fuels with infinite, sustainable, renewable energy. Our best move is to adopt a market solution: a carbon fee-and-dividend system that imposes a gradually rising fee on the carbon that enters our economy in fuels and rebates the proceeds to all citizens. This will shield consumers from increasing fuel costs, stimulate investment in renewable energy and promote the needed shift from dirty to clean energy. We can achieve energy independence, but not by offshore drilling. Mike Morton volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby Brick

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

Smart subsidies needed on energy Congress again shows favoritism towards dirty, polluting finite fuels (“Congress deals major blow to wind power industry”, Feb. 19). Because Congress failed to renew a tax credit for wind production, the industry may decide to take their jobs to other countries that provide more support, such as China which has now become the world leader in wind production. The Department of Energy estimates that 20% of our power could come from wind by 2030, but Congress’s on again off again support of clean energy in this country discourages companies from making long-term investments in the U.S. Meanwhile the fossil fuels industry pollutes our atmosphere with climatechanging greenhouse gases while simultaneously polluting our democracy with enormous amounts of campaign contributions to Congress to ensure fossil fuel subsidies never go away. Not only do fossil fuels receive far greater subsidies than renewables but the fossil fuels industry is not required to pay for other externalities such as free military

protection, health care costs from pollution, and the mother of all market failures climate change. A fair way to correct this market failure is to eliminate all subsidies and require the fossil fuels industry to pay for their externalities in the form of a rising carbon tax. This tax would send a clear signal to the market and encourage private investment in clean energy thereby reducing our emissions. Revenue from this rising tax could be distributed back to taxpayers as a dividend to encourage even more investment in clean energy and energy efficiency so taxpayers can keep more of their dividend check. H.R. 3242 the “Save Our Climate Act” does just that. Contact Rep. Todd Platts and urge him to cosponsor H.R. 3242. It’s time for Congress to invest in our future; after all we didn’t stop burning whale oil because we ran out of whales- we came up with a better idea. Jon Clark York

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 1, 2012

Sun has all the energy we need, and we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t destroy it! OK, it's now a good time to reveal a not-so-hidden secret. Our human race is contributing to the destruction of Mother Earth with our unsustainable lifestyle by polluting, wasting and over-consumption. The practice is universal and led by Americans, including those of us living in the San Diego region. Now, look up into the sky and observe our greatest source of energy, the sun,

which we can not destroy. It's too far away. The sun just keeps going and going and going, like the well-known bunny battery. We are beginning, just beginning, to capture the free and clean energy it produces and use it in our daily lives. It's better than lightning, Mr. Thomas Edison. Think about it. Roger Boyd Solana Beach

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 4, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, MARCH 2, 2012

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

Sun has all the energy we need OK, it's now a good time to reveal a not-so-hidden secret. Our human race is contributing to the destruction of Mother Earth with our unsustainable lifestyle by polluting, wasting and over-consumption. The practice is universal and led by Americans, including those of us living in the San Diego region. Now, look up into the sky and observe our greatest source of energy, the sun,

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

Bill proposes a carbon tax that will benefit environment, economy Increasing gasoline prices at the pump have provided plenty of fodder for debate in this election year. And yet, the only surprise is that anyone is at all surprised. Because the market for petroleum is global, its price fluctuations follow the economics of supply and demand and generally will follow an upward rising trend as the global supply diminishes and demand increases. It is true that price increases will provide incentive for oil companies to go after the harder-to-get sources as the easy-to-get oil already is consumed or spoken for. But these latter sources require more energy to get to and have a greater environmental impact. None of the carbon-rich energy policies proposed in recent Republican primary debates (e.g., more domestic drilling, a tar sands pipeline from Canada) will protect us in the long term, and they only will prolong the illusion that this powerful but scarce resource actually is not scarce. Such an illusion may be comforting to us but devastating to generations who will follow us. The State of the Union addresses from both Presidents Bush and Obama have highlighted our nation’s “addiction to oil” and our need to transition to cleaner fuels. In addition, concern over burgeoning government debt is justifiably widespread. A newly-introduced bill in Congress offers a market-based approach to a gradual replacement of carbon-based energy with more sustainable forms.

The Save Our Climate Act of 2011 (HR 3242) would apply a fee on carbon-based fuels correlating to the CO2 produced when combusted. It would return most of the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a dividend and use a portion of the revenue for deficit reduction. The fee, placed on carbon at the point of entry into the economy, begins at a rate of $10 per ton in the first year and increases by $10 per ton each year. The point of entry is the port accepting oil tankers or the mine where the coal is unearthed, and foreign suppliers, unless they have a similar policy, will be penalized via a border adjustment. How will this affect the price of our gas at the pump? About 9.5 cents per gallon for every $10 per ton, regardless of the market price. Every dollar that is collected, over the first $10 per ton, is awarded back to the public in an annual dividend check — similar to those received by Alaska residents for oil revenue. On the household level, this encourages gradual behavior change and replacement of old appliances and vehicles with more energy-efficient models. The predictable price on carbon gives businesses a needed level of certainty and sends a clear price signal to shift investments, and thus new job creation, away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The bill is good for business and is revenue-neutral with respect to the federal government. The bill is favorable over a capand-trade approach, as the price on carbon is transparent and predictable.

of these being less carbon-intensive than either coal or oil. Increased interest will bring new investors and businesses to the state and could result in Oklahoma being the spawning ground for renewable energy innovation.

Businesses and the free market like certainty and transparency, and with this bill, the certainty comes with national benefits.

OU students and faculty should contact our congressional representatives and ask that they co-sponsor this bill. We also invite you to join our Citizens Climate Lobby group here in Norman that meets monthly with similar groups around the country via conference call. Our mission is to create the political will for a stable climate and to empower individuals to initiate the transition to clean energy. The next meeting is 11:45 a.m. Saturday in 101 Robertson Hall.

The benefits to the nation are numerous â&#x20AC;&#x201D; renewable energy can compete in the marketplace, national security is enhanced with less reliance on imported oil, the U.S. has a chance to become a world leader in newgeneration energy and the atmosphere is spared from additional greenhouse gases that severely alter and exacerbate patterns of drought, flooding and storm intensity. The benefits to the state of Oklahoma also are net positive, as this legislation favors the usage of our immense natural resources of wind, solar power and natural gas â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the last

For additional information, and to find out how you can be involved, contact Jim F. Chamberlain, jfchamb@ou.edu, or Catherine Hobbs, chobbs@ou.edu.

Jim F. Chamberlain, research engineer Water Technologies for Emerging Regions Center, 0U

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 21, 2012

Fossil fuels get boost Re: "Harsh reality of green energy doesn't yet match its spin," The Journal, Feb 16. In Gary Lamphier's analysis, the green energy industry is a disaster story, the implication being that the fossil fuel industry is much more successful. But what Lamphier failed to tell his readers is that the field of play is heavily skewed in favour of the fossil fuel industry. In today's energy market, the fossil fuel industry receives multibillion-dollar government subsidies. On top of that they get to off-load onto the public at large many of the costs associated with their products: the health-care costs from pollution, reclamation costs from damaging the environment,

climate costs attributed to greenhouse gas emissions, security costs of keeping the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. With these advantages, how could the fossil-fuel industry not outperform the green energy industry? We need to level the playing field, and one way of doing it is with a true-cost-pricing of carbon - a pricing policy that takes all the costs into account. With such a policy in place, at the very least, we'd see much better results from the green energy sector. Peter Adamski, Edmonton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 20, 2012

Climate of concern I applaud Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for addressing the serious issue of greenhouse gases and our changing climate (“Climate change ‘call to action’ issued,” Feb. 17). Sociologists and psychologists tell us why so many people vehemently reject the reality of human influence on our climate. But we have little time to wait for their eventual awakening. The science is clear and action is needed now, such as putting a revenue neutral price on greenhouse gases. Even skeptics will rejoice in the benefits of our

becoming more energy independent and cost efficient. I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill during the heat of a different battle: “This is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end. But this is the end of the beginning.” Let us join together to fight against catastrophic climatic disruption. Clinton’s new initiative is the start of our new beginning. Doug Hansen Carlsbad

FEATURE STORY, FEBRUARY 18, 2012

Caring for creation: Faith groups have a role in environmental causes At first glance, the simple red brick church at the end of the road looks a lot like all of the other red brick churches in Farmington, Utah. There's a view of the mountains on one side and a maze of power lines on the other, but on this fairly warm February day, the clue to what makes this church different is on the roof: solar panels and a light dusting of snow. The solar panels are an obvious difference. The snow is subtle. It melted on the grass and the pavement a long time ago, but on the roof — a place often warmed by a building's escaping heat — it's still frozen. That's a good sign to the Interfaith Power and Light activists gathered in the lobby for a tour of the building owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For one thing, it's a sign of energy efficiency. For another, it's a sign of change. Faith groups have not always held a proactive role in addressing environmental issues. In the late 1960s, some scholars even went so far as to blame the Christian concept that humans have dominion over the Earth for the damage that's been done to nature over the centuries. Religious groups in turn, have bristled at an environmentalist cause that seems to focus on worshipping nature, rather than the God who created it. But experts say religious attitudes toward the environment are now shifting to be more proactive toward preservation. In 2010, an average of 47 percent of churchgoers said their clergy regularly teaches about the environment during Sunday sermons, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. And the message is commonly one of stewardship and

responsibility, experts say. As faith groups take more of an active role in teaching worshippers to "care for creation," some conservationists say they look to religion to have a key role in changing America's environmental future ?— and addressing climate change. Some changes are already taking place, such as in this Farmington church. It capitalizes on natural light, saves water, provides its own energy and is recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. "It's just being a good citizen," said David Alley, an architect for the LDS Church, as he led the crowd through the church's ultra-ecofriendly prototype. "One of the impacts of LEED certification is (asking), 'Do we become better citizens?' I think we do." Religious influence Last June, Dave Folland, a retired pediatrician-turned-environmental activist with the Citizens Climate Lobby, found himself sitting in a senator's office in Washington, D.C., discussing climate change. He wasn't having much success — until he read out loud a statement from a scientific committee assembled by the pope last year to study why certain glaciers are melting. "We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants," reads the statement, signed by members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the

Vatican. "We are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish." Religious influence Last June, Dave Folland, a retired pediatrician-turned-environmental activist with the Citizens Climate Lobby, found himself sitting in a senator's office in Washington, D.C., discussing climate change. He wasn't having much success — until he read out loud a statement from a scientific committee assembled by the pope last year to study why certain glaciers are melting. "We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants," reads the statement, signed by members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican. "We are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish." High percentages of religious people surveyed — between 73 percent and 89 percent — said they favor tougher environmental laws and regulations, but when it came to views on global warming, as few as 34 percent of white evangelical Protestants said they believe climate change is caused by human activity, compared with 58 percent of those unaffiliated with a religion who believed the same thing, according to a 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. That distinction is one indication of just how deeply religious concepts are ingrained in culture, says Mary Evelyn Tucker, director of the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University. The Forum extensively studies the role of faith in understanding complex environmental issues and provides public access to that research at www.yale.edu/religionandecology.

"Most people wouldn't immediately go to reflecting on their views of nature as formed by religious views, and yet all cultures are deeply informed by norms and values that are religiously based," Tucker said from her office in Connecticut. "People have spiritual experiences in nature … they seek it out for renewal and inspiration. It is that awe and wonder that every human being is exposed to that is one of the most profound religious experiences." 'Love thy neighbor' The Rev. Canon Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest who established the national, multidenominational organization Interfaith Power and Light in 1998 to facilitate religious involvement in addressing climate change, loves God. Therefore, she loves nature, she says. And she believes religion is key to shaping America's environmental future and views on climate change. "If your faith guides your thinking, it has the potential of being very influential," Bingham said in an interview from her home in California. "If you love God and love your neighbor, then stewardship of creation is part of being a faithful person. That wasn't always a common way of thinking, as the late Lynn White explained in his 1967 essay called "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." In it, the professor of medieval history at the University of California, Los Angeles, pinned environmental problems to Christianity through a passage in Genesis 1:28, that refers to humans as having dominion over the Earth. White's essay, in which he said, "We shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man," struck a nerve that still resonates today. Bingham credits White for first spurring faith groups to get involved in environmental issues and make a change she

hopes will have an equal and opposite impact of White's assertion. But while more faith communities promote the idea that recycling is encouraged and pollution is frowned upon, gaps in the religious community's acceptance of climate change still exist because climate change is a much more politically charged and polarizing issue, says Darren Sherkat, a sociology professor at Southern Illinois University. Religious conservatives have not been as amenable to the idea of limiting energy usage and carbon emissions, says Sherkat, who wrote an analysis on the influence of religion on environmental concern and activism in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion in 2007. "There is a wide gulf between where liberal Christianity is and where conservative Christianity is," Sherkat said in a recent interview. "In some parts of the country, the

petroleum interests and the religious (perspectives) are the same thing â&#x20AC;Ś that God gives us the oil." Still, back in the chapel in Utah, there's a small triumph for the crowd of activists who thrill over things like carbon footprint reduction. They are excited to see the evidence that the religious community may already be changing its thoughts about climate change and having an impact. Through the church's environmentally conscious design, this particular building saved at least 63,000 pounds of coal; 65,000 pounds of carbon and $7,749 in less than a year. "Wow," the group exclaimed to their tour guide when they heard the numbers. "How does that feel?" "It feels wonderful," Alley replied.

Article by Amy Choate-Nielsen quotes Dave Folland, MD, leader of the Citizens Climate Lobbyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Salt Lake City chapter

OPED, FEBRUARY 12, 2012

Marin Voice: 'Carbon fee' a good investment By Rachel F. Ginis and Bob Brown PRESIDENT Barack Obama was right in his State of the Union address to make a clean energy agenda his second pillar in creating long-lasting prosperity in America. The president is calling for ending subsidies to energy companies that are taking in record profits, for American leadership in the burgeoning clean energy technologies, for retrofitting existing buildings to reduce energy use and employ our building trades, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But every State of the Union address, from the days of President Carter, has included proposals to become more energy independent, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to reduce the environmental and economic risks of climate change. In his 2006 address, President Bush vowed to end our "addiction to oil." After 30 years of good intentions, why haven't we made a dent in our energy consumption? Between 1990 and 2007 U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases increased 17 percent, three quarters of which comes from burning fossil fuels. The shift to renewables has been stymied by a lopsided energy market that provides subsidies for the production of fossil fuels, but doesn't take into account the costs of extracting and burning them. The U.S. gives about $9 billion in annual tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The system hasn't changed because of the influence of energy corporations on the government.

The energy industry in theU.S. spends over $360 million each year lobbying Congress. The largest individual recipient was Speaker of the House John Boehner. It's hard to have faith that this Congress can arrive at a bipartisan energy policy to significantly decrease our addiction to fossil fuels. Is there a way to move the market toward efficiency and renewable energy? We think so. It's simple, straightforward and has bipartisan appeal. It's called a Carbon Fee and Dividend. It was first proposed in Washington by former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Republican Party. A similar bill has been recently introduced in the House by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), the Save Our Climate Act (HR 3242). Here's how it works: A steadily rising fee is placed on carbon-based fuels at the point of production or port of entry. All revenue is returned in equal shares to individuals to offset increased energy costs. A household that has a lower-energy lifestyle would see a profit. Those with large or multiple homes, fuel-guzzling vehicles, recreational vehicles, etc. will pay more for those choices. With a guaranteed price signal, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency will become good investments, creating jobs and renewing our technological dominance. Environmental and human health will improve.

Inglis said, "If we just do two things, attach all costs to all fuels and eliminate all subsidies for all fuels, then free enterprise can solve the energy and climate challenge." The Congressional Budget Office agrees that a carbon fee is the most economically efficient option for reducing carbon emissions. It is estimated that the Save Our Climate Act would raise and return more than $2.6 trillion in revenue and reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 25 percent in the first 10 years. The average dividend per person would start at about $160 per person, rise to $590 in year five and $1,170 by year 10. Individuals would see the tangible benefits of reducing their energy use. Marin has made great strides toward a clean energy agenda with green building

ordinances and our very own clean energy agency, but they have been hard won. Putting a steadily rising price on carbon would vitalize and duplicate these efforts in communities through out California and across the nation. This is the conversation we need to be having going in to the next election, anything else would be irresponsible. Rachel F. Ginis of Corte Madera is a green residential designer and building specialist. She is also the founder of the Marin Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. Bob Brown is the former community development director of San Rafael and adjunct faculty at Dominican University. For more information on the Fee and Dividend option, visit the Citizens Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org) and/or the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org)

COLUMN, FEBRUARY 7, 2012

Oil sands and warming go together By Cathy Orlando, Cheryl McNamara, and George Morrison Discourse on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the B.C. coast got off to a raucous start with name calling, accusations and concerns that Canada's economy is at stake even before the hearings in Kitimat, B.C. even began. Underlying the debate is the assumption that the oil sands are good for Canada's economy. But are they more a Faustian bargain? Is Canada sacrificing the stability of the environment and other key economic sectors for the sake of generating as much money as possible from a non-renewable commodity? While concerns over the pipeline's safety are legitimate -any spill could seriously affect the ecologically sensitive west coast and Fraser River for hundreds of kilometres -there are more widespread concerns that have largely been ignored. If given the green light, the Gateway pipeline will serve as a conduit for accelerated oil sands development. The Harper government prefers not to put oil sands and climate change in the same sentence, but they do go together. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warns that development of remaining oil sands and coal reserves will tip the planet towards dangerous global warming. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuel has increased the parts per million (ppm) of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is warming the planet. Civilization has prospered for 10,000 with greenhouse gases stable at 280 ppm up until the dawn of the industrial revolution. That figure is now at 392 ppm and rising by an astonishing 1.5 to two ppm per year. Changes of just one or two degrees Celsius to the global mean temperature can cause radical changes in the climate -widespread drought in some regions, flooding in others, and more severe and extreme weather events, which undermine agriculture, economic development and public health. Indeed, many parts of the globe, including Canada, are beginning to experience extreme weather-related disasters due to a hotter and moister atmosphere. Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurer, has documented more than 30,000 natural catastrophes worldwide over 40 years. According to the reinsurer, the number of registered loss occurrences from extreme weather throughout the world has almost tripled since 1980. Aside from the costs associated with a warming climate -- the 2011 floods in Manitoba cost the province $815 million -accelerated oil sands development is costly in other ways. While it is projected that the pipeline could contribute $131 billion to Canada's gross domestic product and $27 billion in tax

revenues between 2016 and 2030, Canada's manufacturing sector contributed $159.7 billion to the economy in 2010 alone. However, our manufacturing sector has been in decline since 2001. This is partly due to the rapidly developing oil sands, which has helped strengthen Canada's currency. There is a name for this phenomenon. It's called the Dutch disease, so named in the 1970s when the discovery of gas in the North Sea drove up the Dutch currency. The high Dutch guilder increased export prices and led to the decline of Holland's manufacturing sector. For Canada, this is beginning to look a lot like deja vu. Other warnings are coming from unusual quarters. The very conservative International Energy Agency recently advised countries not to lock themselves into insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy systems -- which the Gateway Pipeline will surely do for Canada.

Clearly a national debate on the future of the oil sands is warranted. Happily Canadians have an opportunity to do just that. Provincial energy ministers have begun meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources to chart a national energy strategy. While some see this as a means to fast track oil sands development, others, such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Citizens Climate Lobby are calling for a broad-based carbon pricing mechanism that is transparent and predictable to help optimize energy conservation, as well as spur development and innovations in clean energy. According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, "switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities." We couldn't agree more.

Cathy Orlando is project manager and Sudbury leader for Citizens Climate Lobby Canada. Cheryl McNamara is communications officer and Beaches East York group leader. George Morrison is Parkdale High Park group leader.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 5, 2012

Madeleine Para: Obama: Don't give up on climate act yet President Barack Obama mentioned climate change just once in his State of the Union speech, saying that he didn't expect Congress to adopt comprehensive climate change legislation. He should consider the world he is leaving to his daughters and make climate change his top priority instead of giving up on Congress. The consequences of our energy decisions in the next five years will determine how high a price our children will pay. If we do nothing, they'll endure refugee and humanitarian crises due to rising sea levels, loss of arable land and extreme storms. While Obama is correct that cap and trade is dead, there's a better approach. The Save Our Climate Act would charge energy

companies a fee on carbon emissions at the source, so they pay for their pollution. The fee starts low and rises every year, making clean energy and efficiency more attractive to investors and consumers than fossil fuels. The first year's revenues would be used for deficit reduction. After that, American households would receive an equal portion of the revenues to offset rising energy prices. For conservatives, this offers an option that's market-driven and doesn't add to the size of government. When leaders fail to lead, it's up to citizens to take charge. We must insist Obama and Congress enact the Save Our Climate Act. Madeleine Para, Madison, Member, Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012

Outrageous rhetoric will surely backfire The Harper government has attempted to discredit all who oppose its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline as “radicals” backed by foreign money. Internal government memos released recently apparently even refer to pipeline opponents as “enemies of Canada.” This outrageous rhetoric is so obviously false that it will surely backfire. While there is certainly interest in this issue by American environmental groups — after all, tar sands pollution will not stop at the border — the vast majority of “foreign money” and influence in the pipeline approval process comes from the foreignbased oil companies involved and the international markets who want the oil they will produce here. Tar sands oil will not be for Canadians and most of the money earned will also leave the

country. On the other hand, all the risk of oil spills on land or on the pristine B.C. coast remains with the local residents, wildlife and ecosystem surrounding the pipeline. The Harper government is also glossing over the fact that the land it is presuming to build the pipeline on is traditional aboriginal land which has never been ceded to any government. Mr. Harper and his spokespeople are trying hard to portray these legitimate stakeholders in the process as “hijacking” the political process. Actually, Mr. Harper, these people are the political process. If you believe in democracy then listen to your citizens! Dr. Mark Polle Red Lake

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 4, 2012

Plan your own retirement, if you can, Harper says Last week, in Davos, Switzerland, our Prime Minister made several surprising statements, one being his intent to revamp seniors benefits and retirement income programs including age eligibility issues. How surprised we seniors are to hear that when not a whisper had been heard during the most recent election! This statement becomes even more surprising when our government plans to continue the subsidy of Canadian mining companies’ Social Responsibility Projects abroad. With our tax dollars yet! Also surprising was Mr. Harper’s use of the term “unsustainable” when discussing Old

Age Security! When did he learn the meaning of that term? Canadian politicians are being urged to work on the development of a sustainable economy within a sustainable environment, by people like myself who believe that we cannot have one without the other. And what are we getting? Among other things, like “major domestic reforms,” the fullscale development of the Alberta tar sands, known around the world as the source of “dirty oil.” Patricia Weese Red Lake

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 3, 2012

Ending green program unwise Re: Government pulls plug on ecoEnergy Retrofit program, Jan. 31 When are we going to see a headline that the government plans to end the millions of dollars in annual subsidies to oil and gas companies â&#x20AC;&#x201D; some of the most profitable companies in the world? My partner and I participated in the ecoEnergy Retrofit program. Not only did the energy retrofits improve the comfort and energy efficiency of our 92-year-old home, it reduced our utility

bills and employed 11 contract workers to do the work. This program helps reduce energy waste and greenhouse gases, and employs local people, whereas government handouts to fossil fuel companies encourage waste and contribute to global warming. Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it time that the government prioritize clean energy and join the 21st century? Jane Moffat Toronto

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2 – 8, 2012

Climate change in Hamilton Hamilton’s financial challenges with stormwater and flooding appear likely to get worse as the evidence accumulates of escalating climate change and local numbers align with global shifts. While only a couple of 2011 local storms (in July and October) caused damage, globally the last two years have been the wettest on record and generated catastrophic flooding in many parts of the world. Despite a strong La Nina, 2011 was also the ninth warmest year on record and the 35th consecutive year that average global temperatures were above average. Hamilton temperatures are rising at close to the global average and rainfall amounts have also gone up according to a conservation authority study that examined records for the last 41 years. The global average temperature increase so far is 0.8°C, while Hamilton’s is up 0.9°C in the period examined by the HCA study. Annual precipitation has only risen a little over an inch per year but more of that has been coming in extreme bursts as predicted by climate change scientists. In fact, in most respects those predictions are turning out to be underestimations – not surprising given that science demands a high level of proof for forecasts. The arctic ice cap, for example, was originally predicted to melt by 2050, but we now could be headed to ice– free summers later this decade. In 2011, the extent of arctic ice was more than a third less than the average between 1979 and 2000

and was far below that average in every month last year. While extreme weather–related events continued to batter Asia and Latin America last year, both Australia and the United States were also hit hard. Nearly 60 percent of the US endured either extreme drought or extreme flooding in 2011 and 14 separate events broke the $1 billion mark in damages. The previous one–year record was eight. In Canada there was extreme flooding in Quebec, and across Manitoba and Saskatchewan last year. Hamilton recorded 68mm of rain in a 24–hour period in mid– October, and had a very wet spring but in smaller daily amounts. Windsor wasn’t so lucky – setting an all– time record for the wettest year ever during that same October storm that drenched Hamilton. By the beginning of December, it had recorded 1477mm compared to a normal precipitation total of 844mm and convincing city councillors to offer a basement flooding subsidy for the installation of sump pumps and backwater valves. That’s a step taken by Hamilton council in the fall of 2009 and last year the city extended its “protective plumbing program” to all owner–occupied homes connected to the sewer system. It provides up to $2000 in grants and now requires that all new homes include backwater valves. Carbon dioxide concentrations now stand

at 392 parts per million – exactly 40 percent higher than the pre–industrial period level of 280 ppm. The maximum safe level of 350 ppm was exceeded more than 20 years ago, and current concentrations will force nearly another degree even if all emissions stopped today. Locally the unusual January temperatures both conform to predictions and follow an established trend. The HCA study found average winter temperatures have increased nearly twice as fast as the annual rate.

“Average winter mean temperature has increased 1.7°C”, notes the HCA study, while summer averages are only up 0.3°C, and spring and fall ones have climbed 0.7°C. Precipitation has dropped in the winter season, climbed marginally in spring, and more substantially during the summer months. In the wake of the study, the HCA board directed their staff to develop a climate change strategy that is “designed to increase the climate resilience of the watersheds.” Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

We must act on ‘weird scary’ change Weird weather is taking its toll

There’s weird strange and there’s weird scary. I suspect non-human creatures are experiencing the latter this non-winter. The human ones not mentioned in the article should be, too. We are as dependent on weather stability for our food. Ask a farmer if weather matters.

weather events. But scientists by training are cautious, careful and reluctant to ring alarm bells. That has led most to say we don’t know enough to blame individual weather catastrophes on global climate change. It has meant nearly all their forecasts are turning out to be underestimates.

Last year was the second wettest in global records, exceeded only by 2010. Despite the cooling effects of La Nina, it was the ninth warmest as well. In the United States, 60 per cent of the country endured extreme flooding or extreme drought, and catastrophic floods hit Thailand, Australia, the Philippines, Brazil, Pakistan, El Salvador and South Korea, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec’s Richelieu River area.

There is now overwhelming evidence of scary climatic changes already happening, thus no excuse for Canada to increase pollution with tarsands exploitation and dangerous pipeline schemes. Already the tarsands emit 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a day — equal to a million cars driving 500 kilometres each. We need to end the stranglehold of the fossil fuel corporations on the federal government.

For more than 20 years, climate scientists have been warning of more extreme (weird)

Don McLean Stoney Creek, Ontario

OPED, JANUARY 26, 2012

Obama was right to nix Keystone pipeline By Madeleine Para In the David and Goliath battle over the Keystone XL pipeline, big oil has lost twice now, and their supporters are howling. They tried to force the president to grant a permit for the pipeline by attaching it to the payroll tax cut bill in December, but Obama stood firm and rejected the pipeline last week. This is an amazing victory for environmentalists, since six months ago approval was considered certain. Though we likely haven’t heard the last of the project, we actually stalled Big Oil! The Keystone XL pipeline now is likely to be an election issue. As a climate change activist, I say that this is excellent news. It will give us opportunities to bring up the climate crisis, and how to solve it, with candidates and voters everywhere. We’ll no doubt be outspent many times over by the fossil fuel industry, but if we use the same creativity and tactics (focused actions, civil disobedience and international pressure) that got us this far, we can build the political will for further victories. Big Oil wants the American public to think that the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide jobs and oil. They will repeat their lies and distortions over and over. Here’s what they aren’t saying in their ads and speeches. • The Keystone XL pipeline is a lousy way to create jobs. It would only create a few hundred permanent ones and a few thousand temporary construction jobs, according to an independent study by Cornell University. Considering the billions invested, that’s a paltry level of

job creation. The same investment in energy efficiency, wind and solar would provide tens of thousands of jobs. • The pipeline isn’t about piping tar sands oil to U.S. markets. It’s an export pipeline. It would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf for export overseas, and would actually increase Midwestern gasoline prices by eliminating an oversupply here. The pipeline is about profits. • Last year fuel was the No. 1 export in the U.S., and for the first time in 60 years we exported more fuel than we imported. • U.S. gas consumption is down to its lowest level in 12 years, according to the Oil Price Information Service, despite adding 31 million more cars in that time. But the pipeline battle also lets us state why building infrastructure for more dirty tar sands oil is all wrong. Canadian tar sands oil needs to stay in the ground. The decisions we make as a society in the next five years about our energy investments will determine the degree of upheaval our children and grandchildren will face from a warming planet. If we build everything that’s planned, according to the World Energy Report, we guarantee a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in the global average temperature. At that level we risk catastrophe — millions of refugees from rising sea levels, food shortages, extreme storms and mass extinctions.

To keep from fighting Big Oil one pipeline at a time, we need to push Congress to place a fee on carbon emissions when the fuel is extracted or imported into the country. A fee that starts low and rises steadily will shift investment away from extreme fossil fuels and into clean energy and efficiency.

Returning the revenues equally to every household will ease the transition as fossil fuel prices rise. This is the big battle we need to undertake, to move us off all fossil fuels. The fight against the Keystone XL pipeline is a stepping stone to a new and better energy system.

Madeleine Para is the Madison group leader for Citizens Climate Lobby and the cocoordinator of the new 350 Madison Climate Action. She was arrested in front of the White House last August as part of a massive civil disobedience action against the Keystone XL pipeline.

OPED, JANUARY 25, 2012

FORUM: Smart energy policy is path to healthy U.S. By Amy Bennett An olive branch to the North County Times: I agree with the Jan. 20 XL pipeline editorial, "Environmental Disaster," we need energy. However, I have never heard the claim, as the editorial states: "If we don't buy any more oil, then the rest of the world will follow along and we can all move to 'clean' energy." I have heard, "If the U.S. leads on smart energy policy, the world will follow." Can we agree with 97 percent of climate scientists: Warming is a serious man-made problem, and we must lower CO2 as soon as possible? If you decide not to believe in climate change, you can always find an agreeable source, but is their science credible? The National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change use the peer review process. Peer review is not perfect, but it is reliable; it is the reason we trust cars, airplanes and medicines. Dr. Muller of UC Berkeley, a Koch-funded former skeptic, said, "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. ... Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate." If we agree to disagree on science, we have other reasons to promote renewables. John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, predicted that gas would reach $5 per gallon by the end of 2012. Pipeline or not, gas prices

will keep rising. Indian wind-farm builder Mytrah Energy claims it's able to produce wind power as cheap as coal. The International Energy Agency, founded with the support of Henry Kissinger, suggests we have four years to transition our infrastructure to renewables. Let's catch up. The NCT suggests the pipeline oil would be sold here, but it was never slated to be sold in the U.S. We have other resources. The Department of Energy predicts that 20 percent of U.S. energy will come from wind by 2030, supporting 500,000 jobs. (The coal industry supports only 174,000 jobs nationwide.) A Cornell study states the pipeline would create only 2,500 to 4,650 jobs, lasting less than two years. A TransCanada executive admitted only several hundred permanent jobs would come from the pipeline. Even if the pipeline created a million jobs, when do we follow the axiom, 'First, do no harm'? If 97 percent of doctors say your child needs treatment, how do you ignore them? Band-Aid jobs now won't fool our kids; just ask them. There is a compromise. Economists tell us to tax things we want less of to encourage what we want more of. This "Fee and Dividend" legislation won't increase the size of government. If we tax fossil fuels and return revenues to Americans, it will spur private capital in renewable technology and create jobs. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242) needs support in Congress. It will take human energy and a focus on doing the right thing, not the convenient thing. Amy works for Citizens Climate Lobby.

350 or bust BLOG, JANUARY 24, 2012

Why I Am Putting All My Eggs in the Citizens Climate Lobby Basket By Christine Penner Polle Citizens Climate Lobby is a well-organized grassroots organization made up of Canadians and Americans who want a sustainable future for their children, and are willing to work on creating the political will for a sustainable climate. In the process, they are empowered to claim their own political power in a way many citizens don’t these days. I have been a CCL volunteer for over a year, and have learned more about climate change and working for political change than I ever would have imagined. Today’s guest blogger is Cathy Orlando, Project Manager for Citizens Climate Lobby Canada. Cathy recently left her job as the Science Outreach Coordinator at Laurentian University in Sudbury to devote her time and energy to creating the political will for a sustainable climate. The “Cathy Orlando Environmental Stewardship Award“ was created in 2011 by the national science organization Let’s Talk Science to recognize an outstanding and innovative environmental activity by a “Let’s Talk Science” volunteer. Truth be told I am not passionate about climate change. My true passions are poverty, children and community. I know that climate change is going to severely impact all of those things. Thus I have put all my eggs for the next while into the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) basket to push for a price on carbon pollution federally and bilaterally with the USA. I feel that CCL has the capacity to make this happen because they are laser focused, are using a proven business plan and are promoting a properly vetted economic plan.

As Sudbury’s group leader, last year I lead the CCL chapter on less than 10 hours per month and usually closer to 5 hours per month. The three most important things CCL Leaders do are: First, gather a small group of people around them that meets once a month to improve their education on all aspects of climate change and motivate each other. It can be on the Saturday monthly call but alternatively you can listen to the 20 minute education piece anytime anywhere online after it airs. The current ones are on their home page. Second, develop a Gandhian-like relationship with your Member of Parliament around the issue of climate change. Present the truth of the science of climate change and our economic plan (Carbon Fee and Dividend), ask them to consider it, and listen carefully to their responses. The listening part is the most important part of being a lobbyist because we seek to find common ground and help eliminate barriers that might stand in the way of a politicians doing the right thing; and appeal to the “big thing” that lies within all of us Get articles, letters to the editor and editorials published in your local media so that people can become more educated about the truth of the economics, social impacts, health impacts, public impacts, global security

impacts and science of climate change and thus the politicians will be able to act. Empowerment is energy-giving There is something magical that happens when you do this work. At first you might have to overcome inertia and get out of your comfort zone, but you grow as a person. You become empowered. People around you become empowered. It is very energy giving work. People don’t believe when I say I am a shy and sensitive person. I have spoken truth to power and been in the media more times than I can count now. As well, I am making friends for life across this great continent. When all is said and done I will be able to say to my grandchildren some day, “I did my very best at the time of the climate crisis.” I know when we get a price on carbon pollution, not only will I have peace of mind, but I will have grown tremendously as a

human being and have made the most incredible friends for life. My gut feeling about the effectiveness of Citizens Climate Lobby is shared by the Grandfather of Climate Change, Dr. James Hansen: “When you go away from here the most important thing you can do, in my opinion, is to support the Citizens Climate Lobby because they are pressuring the government to do what is in the public’s interest, not big business.” Nov. 6, 2011 Washington DC To find out how you can work to create the political will for a sustainable climate, and realize your own personal and political power at the same time, email Cathy at ccl.sudbury@citizensclimatelobby.org. Ask her about joining the introductory call on the first and third Wednesdays of every month, or go to the Citizens Climate Lobby website for more info.

MY VIEW, JANUARY 19, 2012

What will we tell the children? By Anne Dillon Last year at the end of October, UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who formerly had been skeptical that the earth was warming, concluded his own ($600,000) two-‐year study (partially funded to the tune of $150,000 by the Koch brothers), undertaken to determine for himself whether or not climate change is real. His findings showed that the world’s surface temperature has risen 1.6 degrees Farenheit (1 degree Celcius) since the 1950s, a finding that corroborated earlier findings of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA. This temperature increase is largely due to the high levels of carbon that are dumped into our atmosphere each and every day. Scientists tell us that the acceptable upper limit of carbon in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. Presently that number is in the 392 range and rising all the time (prior to the Industrial Revolution it hovered around 275). In large part, our elevated carbon levels are due to our hopeless addiction to a fossil fuel economy where moneyed, corporate interests pull the strings of Republican puppets in Congress, blocking any serious hope of energy reform given that their addiction to this dirty oil money is as appalling as the average taxpayer’s passivity in the face of it. In November of last year, findings published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an esteemed United Nations panel that periodically reviews

ongoing developments in climate research, reported that some of the extreme weather around the world is a consequence of human-‐ induced climate change, and we can expect these severe weather patterns to worsen in the years ahead. These patterns include more record-‐breaking temperatures, increased coastal flooding, and greater extremes of precipitation in general. Compounding the severity of this IPCC assessment, the U.S. Energy Department recently reported that greenhouse gas emissions jumped by the highest rate ever in 2010. Newsflash to parents and grandparents: If we continue dumping carbon into the environment at our present rate, our children and our children’s children will face a variety of devastating environmental, humanitarian and economic catastrophes, which will rock their world and render it unrecognizable. What can we do for them now so that this doesn’t happen? How can we lower carbon emissions so that these potential catastrophes, which we have propelled willy-‐ nilly into forward motion, are averted? On October 25, 2011, Democratic congressman Pete Stark of California introduced the Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), which eight House Democrats have signed on to co-‐sponsor. H.R. 3242 would tax carbon emissions at the first point of sale or import at a rate of $10 a ton of CO2 for the first year. This fee would continue to rise by $10/per emission ton annually, until the target goal of 20 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions is reached—estimated to be by the

year 2050. It is projected that $2.6 trillion would be generated in the first 10 years, $490 billion of which would go toward paying down the federal deficit and the remainder returned to American citizens in the form of an annual dividend from the IRS ($160 the first year, $1,170 10 years out). Under this plan, everybody wins. The environment wins because it is no longer a free and open sewer for polluters; the American citizen wins in the form of money refunded to them from the government; and the government wins in that the deficit is reduced. Nelson Mandela said, “We know what needs to be done—all that is missing is the will to do it.” Do we have the will to take our

climate back from the rapacious polluters and their greedy, collaborating cronies in Congress? When you look at your children and your children’s children, ask yourself if you have what it takes to do what needs to be done. And if you don’t . . . what will you tell the children? Anne Dillon, a volunteer with Citizens Climate Lobby, lives in Waitsfield, Vermont.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 9, 2012

Destined for climate crash Re: "A climate victory we may regret," Opinion, Dec. 28. The Journal's editorial board likens the Harper government's climate position to a game of Texas hold'em. From a risk point of view, I liken our government's position to a game of chicken, wherein two drivers bear down on each other from opposite directions, each daring the other to swerve away. If neither swerves, the result is a potentially deadly collision. I wouldn't be concerned if it was just the life of his government that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was risking. But what's at stake are the lives of future generations, all because Harper refuses to believe that global warming is caused by humans. In its latest report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a government body initiated by U.S. President Barack Obama and mandated by Congress) lists 10 key findings, the first of which states that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced."

The finding supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in its 2007 report stated that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-‐20th century "is very likely" the result of human activities. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences supports these findings, as does NASA, the American Geological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for Advancement of Science. The list goes on. And yet it's still not enough to prompt our government into action. If the fossil-‐fuel industry needs a subsidy, support for a pipeline or help with a burdensome regulation, Harper is there with a bag of money, pompoms and a regulatory workforce reduction. But when it comes to action on climate change -‐ the greatest issue facing the world -‐ Harper is an obstructionist and has been since he first darkened our political landscape. Peter Adamski, Edmonton

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, JAN. 3, 2012

How to trim fossil fuel use I read the article “States slash heat aid” and shook my head in disbelief. The article told of a 92 year old Boston resident who may pay $3,000 for heating oil to heat her “drafty trailer” this winter. The part that troubles me is that taxpayer money is going towards heating a “drafty trailer.” Having a draft obviously means there are leaks and gaps in insulation (or possibly no insulation at all) for her trailer. This is taxpayer aid literally going out the window. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against helping those who need it but shouldn’t we be looking at efficiency? Some electric and gas companies give rebates for (or even offer free) energy audits that point out problem areas in your home that may be wasting energy. Spending a few hundred on insulation, caulk, and weather-‐ stripping would be a onetime cost and would drop future heating bills drastically (much to the dismay of oil companies), save thousands of taxpayer dollars, give low-‐income

families some much needed comfort from the elements, and begin to reduce climate-‐change-‐ causing greenhouse gases. Why not look beyond efficiency and begin moving away from fossil fuels? With the knowledge that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, we should be doing all we can to wean ourselves from them right now. There is currently legislation in the House of Representatives that puts a price on fossil fuels and returns revenue back to citizens so they can use this money for projects such as weatherizing. H.R. 3242 the “Save Our Climate Act” is a market based approach to addressing the climate crisis and would send a signal to the market that we should be investing in clean, renewable energies. This is a common sense solution to address a very serious problem. Jon Clark Conewago Township

DEC. 29, 2011

Green Chamber says no to Keystone, dirty fuels By John H. Reaves & Ryan Ginard TransCanada has proposed the 1,702-‐mile, $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline (“KXL”), designed to carry an additional 830,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil from Canada to refineries near the Gulf. KXL has spawned national controversy and protests. The fate of KXL lies in the hands of the State Department and President Obama, who campaigned to combat climate change. In November, the president said he would delay any decision until 2013. Congress recently tied a payroll tax extension to a 60-‐day presidential decision on KXL or face an automatic permit grant. After carefully evaluating pros and cons, the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce urges our government to reject misleading arguments that we would be safer and better off economically pursuing risky unconventional sources of fossil fuels. Instead, we should boost clean energy. The chamber supports business practices that are sustainable and consistent with long-‐term environmental protection and also enable businesses to participate in the

rapidly growing green economy. It would be irresponsible to invest in infrastructure that hastens destruction of the environment and dependence on extra-‐dirty fuels. Our nation’s foremost climatologist, James Hansen, says if KXL is built and Canadian tar sands are developed, carbon dioxide could rise to 600 parts per million (since humanity began, only exceeded 290 after Industrial Revolution; “safe” is below 350; currently about 390). He says the “game” (stopping the worst of climate change) would be “over,” leaving dire challenges to our children and planet. Extracting and refining tar sands is so fuel-‐intensive that the EPA estimates an increase of 1.15 billion tons of greenhouse gases over KXL’s 50-‐year life span. Processing requires grinding down the surface, often over 50 feet, to get at bitumen seams, then consuming 400 million gallons of water a day to produce petroleum slurry. Ninety percent of the resulting polluted water is dumped into toxic tailing ponds that already cover 65 square miles. The environmental destruction is inconceivable. The Alberta tar sands set

for extraction are found under forests and wetlands similar in size to Florida. KXL would traverse our heartland over the Ogallala aquifer that serves farms and 2 million people. The two existing tar sands oil pipelines already have bad records, including an 830,000-‐ gallon spill into the Kalamazoo River last year. Proponents of KXL urge we jump at private investment and jobs. The State Department says projected jobs are around 6,000, not 20,000. Even a large number would not justify the huge environmental cost. They also claim getting oil from Canada strengthens national security. Yet retired four-‐star generals and admirals concluded in a Rockefeller Foundation study that climate change, if not addressed, is the greatest threat to national security. Furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports we export more petroleum products than we import. Since proponents argue KXL imports would make us more secure, wouldn’t exporting less be a better option? Moreover, even if the U.S. permits KXL, most of the oil appears destined for other countries. The New York Times reported six companies have already contracted for three-‐quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the one American company, Valero, is reportedly geared toward export. Meanwhile, China has invested billions in Canada’s tar sands projects. There is currently no way to deliver oil to the Pacific, and disputes with environmentalists and indigenous communities threaten to derail any proposed pipeline.

The chamber understands the need to improve jobs and the national economy. We want America to become the engine of the global economy again. But KXL is not the answer. Put a price on carbon, such as with Rep. Pete Stark’s Save Our Climate Act, and watch a landslide of capital move to renewables. Add long-‐term regulatory direction and certainty. Increase utilities’ use of renewable energy nationwide. Allow anyone to sell excess generated power to utilities at a reasonable profit over a long term. Provide low-‐interest funding options for solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects and require use of American products to the fullest extent practical. Do the same for energy efficiency projects. Streamline processing for similar types of renewable projects. Continue subsidies to fledging – and promising – clean industries. All these would help spur jobs and retrain many of the unemployed. We face a great moral challenge: whether to lock ourselves into possibly catastrophic climate change or stop using dirtier unconventional fossil fuels. The chamber urges: 1) the U.S. reject KXL, 2) press all nations to leave tar sands in the earth, and 3) create clean energy jobs by pricing carbon and adding regulatory direction. Reaves, a San Diego-based business and environmental lawyer, is director of policy for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce and co-founder of Ecovolve Partners. Ginard is the advocacy and government relations manager for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce.

DECEMBER 29, 2011

Reject pipeline to protect our environmental future By Madeleine Para and Peter Anderson As we looked fondly upon our children happily unwrapping presents this holiday season, the time arrived, at long last, to recognize a chilling fact. We with gray hairs will be dead when the worst toll from global warming falls due, but our young innocents -‐ the very best of what we are and what we leave behind -‐ will remain to reap the whirlwind. America has so much to be proud of when faced with an imminent crisis, as our grandparents bravely did during World War II. But, truth be told, we have not shown the same resolve in the face of this gathering storm. Most have heard the sobering statistics about the future threat from climate change: 97% of climate scientists agree that by the end of this century unchecked carbon emissions will likely result in 30-‐foot sea level rises, massive "dust bowl" droughts and increasingly frequent and extreme weather events. We are already experiencing temperature increases, melting glaciers and

unprecedented incidents of crazy weather. Do you want to make the most important New Year's resolution of your life? Decide to become a climate activist. Averting the worst of global warming demands that we stop burning coal, oil and natural gas and replace them with massive efficiency gains and renewable energy. The battle rages today over whether to commit enormous investments in fragile places such as the arboreal forests in Alberta, Canada, where Big Oil wants to extract the uniquely dirty tar sands oil and pipe it to Texas, where most of it will be refined and shipped abroad. Proponents of this $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline have ignored the impact that developing tar sands oil would have on the climate, but National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist James Hansen has stated it would be "game over for the climate." Pipeline proponents claim the pipeline would be good for the economy by creating many jobs. However, the only independent study of the pipeline's impact on jobs, by Cornell University's Global Labor

Institute, concluded the pipeline "will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates." In response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt converted the automobile industry to wartime production by making it illegal to sell new cars. In 2012, facing the impending threat of climate disasters, President Barack Obama should oppose committing billions to any more extreme fossil fuel exploitation, including the tar sands pipeline that he has the power to deny, and promote the development of renewable energy. If those billions slated for a climate-‐

killing pipeline were redirected into wind and solar power, 35,000 jobs could be created. If we pull together like we did in World War II, we can convert our economy to new sources of energy and emerge stronger than ever. Act today as if the viability of the world your children will inhabit depends upon it, because it does. Urge the president to reject the tar sands pipeline. Madeleine Para is a climate activist in Madison who heads the Wisconsin chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. Peter Anderson is a recycling consultant headquartered in Madison.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 28, 2011

No to Keystone pipeline When Dan Memmott wrote "Approve Keystone Pipeline" (Readers' Forum, Dec. 21), he clearly wasn't considering the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels. He ignored the recommendations of the National Academy of Science and 31 other national science agencies that have addressed the issue for their countries. These groups warn that continued burning of fossil fuels will cause additional warming of the planet, leading to extreme weather events. We are seeing the consequences of a mere 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature elevation — such as 12 weather disasters causing over $1 billion this year, the most ever in the

U.S., and 13 of the warmest years in human history in the past 15 years. I completely agree with Memmott that creating 20,000 jobs would be valuable. However, I'm convinced we would be better served to use the $7 billion he mentioned to develop renewable sources of energy and train the people for jobs in that field. This would not only create permanent jobs, but also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our national security and reduce our contribution to climate-‐changing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Bill Barron Salt Lake City

DECEMBER 27, 2011

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

Battling climate change By REX SPRINGSTON Richmond Times Dispatch Forget soccer mom. Meet enviro mom. Elli Sparks, mother of two, is walking the walk for the environment and against climate change. To limit energy use linked to global warming, Sparks tends a garden and raises hens in an "itty, bitty city henhouse" behind her home in Woodland Heights in South Richmond. Sparks works at home as a fundraiser for nonprofits, which means less driving. She bikes. She uses a clothesline, not a dryer. She keeps her thermostat low. "We have the kids wear sweaters instead of using heat," said Sparks, a 5-‐ foot, dark-‐haired ball of energy. Her husband, Rob Staropoli, 42, is on board environmentally. Working at home as a cabinetmaker, he uses special glues and finishes that give off little or no pollution. Sparks, 45, a Baltimore native who was raised a Lutheran, now practices a nondenominational form of worship that drives her environmentalism. Her religion, she said, involves "a very personal understanding of my spiritual relationship with the creator and creation."

Credit: EVA RUSSO/TIMES-DISPATCH

Elli Sparks shows off one of her hens in her backyard in South Richmond. Sparks leads the Richmond chapter of a group concerned about climate change.

She would like that creation to stay intact. And that's where her battle against climate change comes in.

Sparks spent five years tending to her son, Peter, now 10, who was born with a heart defect. Surgery finally healed Peter, and Sparks, who had put her passion for environmentalism aside during Peter's period of ill health, began to look into the issues about two years ago. In August 2010, she pulled from a library shelf a book on climate change — "Eaarth" by nationally known environmentalist Bill McKibben. "I sat down and read that book, and I wept the entire time. I cried as I was reading about climate change and the impact it was having on people, on animals, on plants, on our planet," she recalled. "It was just overwhelming. ... I would look at my two beautiful children and think, 'What kind of future do you have?' " The vast majority of climate scientists say the planet is warming, and the evidence is strong that humankind is playing a major role by burning fuels such as coal and oil that release heat-‐trapping gases. Scientists say climate change is raising sea levels, threatening low-‐lying areas; endangering wildlife habitats; and posing potential problems for the Chesapeake Bay, among other ills. Warnings about warming are coming from scientific organization around the globe, including the venerable National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. Still, some people believe climate change is a myth. Sparks said she has empathy for those in "denial mode." "It's a natural human response to something that's overwhelming. ... To look it seriously and honestly in the face, it's scary, and it's hard to imagine how we are going to pull together and solve this."

In March, Sparks founded the Richmond-‐area chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby, a San Diego-‐based group that encourages personal and political action to fight global warming. By setting examples and contacting lawmakers, Sparks said, "we want to create the political will for a sustainable climate." Richmond's fledgling climate group has about 15 members. They include Richard Taranto of Richmond, a retired Navy commander who worked in the service as an oceanographer and meteorologist. Sparks, he said, "is basically a very concerned citizen. ... She's a very caring person. If more people could live and work and communicate as she does, I think our community and our country and our world would be a lot better place to live." Sparks and Staropoli live in a sky-‐ blue, two-‐story frame house on a large lot with six hens, two Muscovy ducks, a dog and the two children. (The other is Sophia, 13.) They home-‐school their children. The ducks followed Sparks as she showed off her backyard garden and menagerie the other day. "They're coming to see what's going on." Some environmentalists brandish slogans and banners. Sparks tries friendly persuasion, often bringing homemade bread and sodas to people who may not share her views. "I've learned in my life that it is important to come from a place of love, not from a place of fear." After all, Sparks said, "I'm just a little old mom in Woodland Heights."

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 22, 2011

Hastening our demise Re: "The return of Gov. Moonbeam," Editorial, Dec. 18: Gov. Jerry Brown may not be making great strides solving California's economic issues, but calling his climate-‐change leadership "the lowest point to date" is irresponsible. Climate change is the most serious issue facing the planet, yet because of U.S. short-‐term thinking driven by politics of sound bites, we are only hastening our demise. We are in a serious economic crisis exacerbated by extreme climate events. The year 2011 set a record with 12 extreme weather events of more than $1 billion in damage. What effect will this have on property insurance rates? The economic damage to farmland, crops and cattle alone has been devastating and will likely continue. Yet our policies do little to

lessen the impacts of our human activities. Leading us in the right direction is Rep. Pete Stark's H.R. 3242, the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that taxes carbon-‐based fuels, returning most of the revenue to consumers with a portion directed towards deficit reduction. I urge support for this bill, which is straightforward and found on the Web. Meanwhile, the reference to "evidence" of the debunked "Climategate" is old news and fully exonerated. See www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci ence_and_impacts/global_warming_contr arians/debunking-‐misinformation-‐stolen-‐ emails-‐climategate.html . Peg Mitchell San Marcos

CEDAR RAPIDS

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011

We can’t wait until 2020 to cut emissions While it is encouraging that a path forward now exists for an international agreement on climate change, the deal completed Dec. 11 in Durban, South Africa, will allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue rising until 2020. By that time, we may well exceed the tipping point on global warming. Extending the Kyoto Protocol to 2017, implementing a legally binding pact to limit greenhouse gases by 2020 and including China and India and especially the United States in the pact are some positive breakthroughs that we should celebrate. But it’s clear from what the science is telling us and the increasing number of extreme weather events that we can’t wait until 2020 to start cutting fossil fuel emissions. A bill introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., the Save

Our Climate Act of 2011 (H.R. 3242), places a steadily rising tax on carbon-‐ based fuels and returns revenue to consumers on a per-‐capita basis. Border adjustments on imports from nations that don’t have a similar pricing mechanism provide a strong incentive for other nations to implement their own carbon tax. In the face of global crisis, the world waits for U.S. leadership. We must lay aside partisan bickering and develop a national policy of sustainable energy use. H.R. 3242 is a workable plan. It is revenue neutral and encourages the free market to move into alternative energy development. I urge Rep. David Loebsack to become a co-‐sponsor. Elisabeth Robbins Marion

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 17, 2011

What is our gov't waiting for? Put a price on carbon and let market decide winners, losers Re Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto — CJ, Dec. 13: The International Energy Agency’s recently released 2011 World Energy Outlook warns if our fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will “lose forever” the chance to avoid dangerous climate change. The NOAA’s Climate Extreme Index for 2011 reveals the U.S. has seen the most severe precipitation extremes on record this year. This follows news that a record number of billion-‐dollar weather disasters have occurred in North America in 2011. At the American Geophysical Union meeting last week, Russian scientists reported that “fountains” of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are being released from the melting Siberian permafrost “on a scale never seen before.” It is to this backdrop that the Harper government has moved to pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international climate change treaty. If only this meant that instead of messing around with half-‐hearted, piecemeal

attempts to address the most urgent issue of our time our federal government was serious about tackling it head on. A truly conservative approach to this daunting yet conquerable challenge would be to remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, put a price on carbon pollution, and allow the free market to decide the winners and losers. Carbon fee and dividend is a market-‐ based climate change solution that is simple and transparent and sends a clear message to business about the move to clean energy. Individual Canadians, not corporations or the government, receive the money collected to help cushion them from the short-‐term costs of the shift to a green economy. Best of all, our children and grandchildren receive the gift of a stable climate, cleaner air and water, and an economy that runs on sustainable sources of energy. What is our government waiting for? Christine Penner Polle Red Lake

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 15, 2011

Parking complaints ignore real problem – dependence on cars What’s with all the agitation about parking? There seems no end of controversies – downtown, hospitals, neighbourhood streets. Mention it and expect an argument – no matter what you say. Maybe it’s time to step back and think about why it seems to matter so much. It seems a lot like smoking – I have to have it when I have to have it – suggesting that there’s an addiction problem here – not to parking, but to cars. Unfortunately, that addiction isn’t just hurting the folks who have it. Our dependence on cars – and places to put them – is a large part of some of the most serious problems we face both here in Hamilton and elsewhere. In Hamilton, the city is more than $2 billion behind in maintaining existing infrastructure and the majority of that is roads. We’re falling behind an extra $195 million every year. Just to stop that decline would require a 25 per cent increase in property taxes. The only ‘solution’ offered by councillors is that some other level of government (read provincial or federal taxpayers – i.e. us) should bail us out. In Hamilton, we’ve known for nearly 15 years that air pollution is killing about 100 people a year and making life miserable for thousands with asthma, COPD and other breathing problems. It’s also a major cause of heart attacks and

because of industrial shutdowns, transportation is the single largest cause (read cars). Why? Because we’ve somehow convinced ourselves that it’s OK to use the atmosphere as a sewer. There’s a terrible price for that arrogance and it’s not just being paid in our health. We all know that emissions from vehicles are one of the main causes of climate change. The waste we dump out our tailpipes is building up and people around the globe are the victims. Most of them don’t get mentioned in the media, except as a statistic, but international agencies like the United Nations estimate climate change- caused deaths are well over 100,000 per year. The United States got a taste of it this year – with at least 12 extreme weatherrelated events (tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires) each causing more than $1 billion in damage, according to a report issued last week by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The previous record was nine (set in 2008). Munich RE Insurance tracks natural disasters in the U.S. Last year, there were 247. Prior to 1990, the number never topped 100. In the last five years, it hasn’t been below 150. We’ve had a smaller taste in Hamilton – two 100-year storms in 2009, 15 severe

enough to cause home and road flooding since 2005. For those directly affected, it hurt, but no one died from it. We can try to ignore it and carry on as if there isn’t a

problem – except about parking – but the reality isn’t going away. Don McLean Stoney Creek

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 14, 2011

Dismount dead horse Re “No climate deal” (Opinion, Dec. 2): Given the apparent failure of United Nations climate talks in Durban, South Africa, we Americans have a choice to make regarding attempts to coordinate a global effort to address climate change. We can exhaust ourselves arguing about who is to blame, or we can demonstrate leadership by shifting to renewable energy sources. Others will certainly follow. We have long heard that renewables aren’t economically competitive with carbon-‐based fossil fuels. That is no longer the case. Renewable energy’s costs have steadily dropped and will continue to drop the more they are adopted. If not yet competitive, they will be very soon.

We could embrace our renewable energy future by enacting smart, forward-‐looking policies. We could shift subsidies from dirty energy to clean energy. We could put a fee on carbon with proceeds going to every American household, as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act, recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Lakota have a saying: If you find yourself riding a dead horse, it’s best to dismount. How long before we switch and ride abundant clean energy sources instead of the scarce, dirty and increasingly expensive energy sources that we currently ride? Ben Mates Salt Lake City

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DECEMBER 13, 2011

The consequences of paving Red Hill Valley Re: Flood control scheme has residents on edge (Dec. 9) The flooding threat to the Red Hill Valley Parkway is understandable. It was built in a floodplain. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, the political decision to build the road in the valley was made long before the engineers were asked to figure out how to do it. And the city ignored the likely effects of climate change, even though Canada endorsed the Kyoto Protocol six years before construction of the parkway began. Then lawyers were given over $3 million to prevent a federal environmental assessment that would have exposed these problems, and a secret further amount to sue the federal government for trying to help. Add to that the $4.5 million for expressway flood cleanup so far, plus the $4 million for the latest flood prevention scheme, plus

whatever the city ends up paying the affected landowners. The sad part is that there’s little the city can do here to prevent more flooding as climate change generates more severe storms. Ironically, more expressways mean more driving and more emissions and more rapid climate change. The flooding gets worse as we replace natural areas with impervious surfaces. And the flooding here — bad as it’s already been — is minor compared to the rapidly increasing climatic catastrophes on other parts of the planet including tens of thousands of deaths every year. The emissions we dump into the global atmosphere contribute to those disasters and deaths. Isn’t it time we woke up? Don McLean Stoney Creek

Calgary Beacon Calgary Independent online local news, Dec. 13, 2011

Shift to clean energy is where the puck is heading Call for carbon pricing system, proceeds used to develop sustainable economy By Cheryl McNamara Earlier this month, the world convened once again to nail down a post-‐Kyoto commitment on climate change. And once again the climate talks, held in Durban, South Africa, generated a cacophony of voices and more finger pointing that inevitably led to disappointment on one hand and relief on the other that no deal has been reached yet to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. At the crux of this struggle between committing to science-‐based reduction targets and continuing business as usual is the tension between pushing for paradigm change and holding fast to the status quo. Change tends to scare people. People don’t like to see the world in which they grew up – its views and expectations – shift abruptly. But in order to prevent global temperatures from reaching dangerous levels – which will also trigger abrupt societal changes as a result of rising sea levels, compromised agriculture and so on –

we are asked to collectively and quickly shift our economies and behaviours. Is it any wonder that among those contributing to the climate change conversation is a small but highly vocal group who question the science, despite the robust research, declaring global warming to be a lie, dreamt up by devious liberals to take over the world? More conservative voices, however, are now joining the climate action chorus, including religious, military and business leaders. The Pope, in particular, has been a vocal climate action proponent, calling on negotiators in Durban “to craft a responsible and credible deal to cut greenhouse gases that takes into account the needs of the poor.” Recently Canadian representatives of 30 faith communities and organizations issued a statement calling for global action on climate change and equating climate action with public well-‐being. The U.S. military is also taking a lead, foreseeing security threats that will come with a warming world and

continued dependency on oil from hostile countries. Recognizing that clean energy development is critical to national security, the U.S. Department of Defence plans to annually spend $10 billion on renewable energy for military application by 2030. Just as the military gave civil society the Internet and GPS, so too will it help fast track innovations and market development of renewable energy technologies. The business community too sees the writing on the wall. According to Torsten Jeworrek, CEO of reinsurance operations at Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, “switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the prime task this century faces and offers substantial financial opportunities.” To facilitate renewable energy development, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is calling for “a broad-‐based carbon pricing scheme that is transparent and predictable.” Such a mechanism will help change behaviours, and spur innovation and the development of cleaner energy sources, products and services, according to the CCCE. Rather than heed their advice, Foreign Minister John Baird declared that Canada will never adopt a carbon tax. Never is a long time, particularly when we are running out of it. In its recently released World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns countries of “locking into an insecure, inefficient and high-‐carbon energy system.”

Even Ed Stelmach, Alberta’s former Premier, recognized the danger of becoming too reliant on its resources, warning that Albertans could find themselves “watching the global economic game from the sidelines – because our resource wealth made us too comfortable, and we lost the drive to achieve and perform at a critical moment.” The critical moment is now. Wayne Gretsky famously said that the secret to his success was skating to where the puck was heading, not to where it was. With mounting calls to reduce greenhouse gases, diminishing supply from conventional oil wells, and innovation in clean energy technology, it’s clear where the puck is heading. Canada has a choice. Either lock into an insecure high-‐carbon system, or legislate a mechanism that sends a clear market signal to nourish an industry poised to surge, bring new life back to our ailing manufacturing sector, create an abundance of quality jobs, and create healthier communities. Change is difficult. But not when it generates great benefits. By putting a price on carbon that increases annually and giving the proceeds back to citizens to stimulate the economy we can develop a sustainable society for our kids and grandkids. Isn’t that what true conservatism is all about? Cheryl McNamara is the Communications Officer for the Organization Citizens Climate Lobby

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 9, 2011

Tax use of fossil fuels I appreciate former Sen. Bob Bennett for his recent appeal to good sense ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). What would really make sense would be to take a whole-‐ systems, long-‐term view of the effects of burning fossil fuels to provide our energy. Our current combustion of fuels brings with it the cumulative costs of treating respiratory and other diseases, waging war to secure energy resources, smog, acid rain, and species extinction — not to mention the astronomical costs of climate disasters.

If even a portion of these is taken into account, then it most definitely makes sense to institute policies to promote a shift to clean, renewable energy sources as quickly as possible. A fee on carbon combined with a dividend of 100 percent of the revenues back to households (as proposed in the Save Our Climate Act — HR3242) would be a good start in having real costs reflected in our energy equation. It makes a lot of sense to drive our economy to more livable and resilient outcomes. Ben J. Mates Salt Lake City

COMPASS: Other points of view, DEC. 8, 2011

A carbon fee could make a big difference By JIM THRALL When it comes to climate change, we're literally skating on thin ice here in the north, and unless we start reducing emissions of heat-‐trapping gases within five years, catastrophic consequences will be unavoidable. That was the warning from the International Energy Agency prior to the opening of the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa. It's a warning that seems to fall on deaf ears among politicians in America. As a result, U.S. negotiators arrived empty-‐handed at this year's conference, with no credible plan of action to reduce the threat of climate change. This isn't great news. Here in Alaska, the changes taking place in our climate are hard to miss. Already, feedback loops are beginning to hasten the process. Arctic waters, heating up faster than expected, decrease ice cover and reduce reflection of solar radiation to outer space, further increasing heat absorption. Thawing permafrost releases massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse gases we release by burning fossil fuels. These tipping points were predicted by climate scientists years ago. Yet, even as they occur, the coal and oil industries continue to cast doubt on the serious nature of the problem -‐-‐ just as the tobacco industry cast doubt on the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

If this weren't bad enough, another serious tipping point approaches as the ocean absorbs more, and more CO2 slowly becoming more acidic. As pH drops in the waters of Kachemak Bay, eventually we'll reach the point where crabs cannot easily maintain their exoskeletons. Pterpods, a major food for salmon, will begin to disappear. It isn't clear how quickly this will happen, but it is beyond foolish to hope that without action on our part it will not occur. Fortunately there is action we can take to avoid the worst-‐case scenario that looms in our future: Put a fee on carbon. Economists agree that the best way to change harmful behavior is by increasing the cost. First, a fee on carbon will recognize the true cost of our overuse of this energy source (the many external environmental and social costs that have long gone unaccounted for). Second, this fee will encourage massive investment in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency, providing jobs to thousands of people, stimulating our moribund economy and putting us back in the competition for dominance of the world's energy sector, a race we are currently ceding to China and Germany. Finally, by rebating most of the fee to American households, the effect of the temporary increase in energy prices will be largely mitigated. The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), recently introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-‐Calif., does exactly what is described above. It also uses part of the fee to reduce the deficit, addressing

another critical issue that Congress is currently struggling with, albeit with limited success. Given the real threats we face if CO2 emissions are not controlled -‐-‐ floods, droughts, food shortages, more severe storms, rising sea levels, decreased ocean productivity -‐-‐ we need to demand that Congress act. As members of the Senate Oceans Caucus Committee Sens. Murkowski and Begich have important roles to play in addressing ocean acidification. In addition, Sen. Murkowski is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Begich sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Support of the

Save Our Climate Act or other legislation to place a fee on carbon is the best way to address what is becoming a grave threat to Alaska's all important marine resources. If you like to catch, eat or sell seafood or live a subsistence lifestyle, demand that they step up to the plate. Oh, and by the way, this doesn't mean Alaska won't continue to produce oil and gas for the domestic market. In fact, it is likely that one thing that a fee on carbon will do is encourage more production of natural gas. Jim Thrall is the Anchorage leader of Citizens Climate Lobby.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 6, 2011

Initiate carbon tax I applaud former Sen. Bob Bennett for his sensible article on approaching climate change ("On climate change, let sense rule," Dec. 5). Yes, reducing our carbon footprint is both possible and it makes good economic sense. Bennett also points out that developing nations continue to increase their greenhouse gases even as the U.S. emissions have decreased. How can the U.S., which has created more of the excess greenhouse gases than any other nation, influence these nations to reduce their use of carbon dioxide-‐ producing fuels? The U.S. should build on the success that Bennett notes by putting

a price on carbon and returning the proceeds to the American people. Such a proposal is the basis of the Save our Climate Act (HR3242), which was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would further stimulate our move to energy efficiency and use of renewable energy and provide a strong incentive for other nations to adopt their own carbon tax. As Bennett affirms, cap and trade has not worked. Let's try a new legislative approach that makes sense. David S. Folland Sandy

Guest blog posted on December 5, 2011

Saving N.E. seasons (and Earth’s climate) starts in Durban By Gary Rucinski, Founder, Citizens Climate Lobby Boston Chapter I was born in New Jersey but, when it comes to the weather, I am New England Yankee through and through. After my family moved to Massachusetts, my grandfather taught me how to garden. My childhood was defined by the cycle of planting in spring, watering and weeding in summer, and harvesting in fall. I remember the sweetness of homegrown strawberries, the snap of fresh beans, and the taste of my grandmother’s green tomato relish made with the last pickings from the vine. To this day, I feel the appreciation that gardening instilled in me for the New England seasons. Sadly, we no longer have the seasons I grew up with. As scientists predicted, our climate has changed. Seasons in New England today are more like those of northern New Jersey in the early sixties. By late this century, if we don’t act, New England seasons will be like those of present day South Carolina. Should we live so long, my wife will rejoice at this change, but I will mourn the loss of the seasons of my childhood.

If the New England seasons were the only potential loss due to climate change, there might be little urgency to act. But this year, the U.S. experienced the bitter taste of what climate change will bring. We’ve seen devastating fires in drought-stricken Texas; tornadoes and a freak October snowstorm that dumped 30” of snow in western Massachusetts; and massive floods along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Extreme weather events overall caused $50B in damages in 2011. As the reality of climate change has been sinking in, the case advanced by climate change deniers has been collapsing. Richard Mueller, a former skeptic, announced results confirming the scientific consensus on global

warming. Simultaneously, a clear winner was also emerging as the best policy option for addressing climate change. The consensus policy approach is to put a tax on the carbon in fossil fuels. Called a carbon tax, it is viewed in countries around the globe and by economists across the ideological spectrum as the most effective way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels that cause climate change. This year Australia passed a carbon tax that will raise the price of energy but cut income taxes by an equivalent amount. British Columbia has been operating with a similar tax for four years. South Africa’s National Treasury concluded, “Carbon taxes afford firms the flexibility to undertake emissions reductions according to their specific processes and provide the long-term price certainty which is essential for investment decisions.” In the U.S., Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins submitted the CLEAR Act in the last Congress. This act proposed auctioning carbon shares that gradually increase in price. Seventy five percent of auction proceeds would have been returned directly to households. In October, Representative Pete Stark and eight cosponsors submitted theSave Our Climate Act. This bill would put a gradually increasing tax on carbon. It would return most proceeds to households and use a portion to reduce the national debt.

It may seem nonsensical to tax carbon on the one hand and refund nearly the same amount to consumers. We have seen, however, that Americans change their habits when energy gets more expensive. Also, private investment in the clean tech and alternative energy sectors increases when costs for energy rise. The guarantee of a gradually increasing carbon tax will give consumers and businesses the predictability they need to justify the investments that will jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy. Refunds will allow all Americans to purchase the energy they need during the transition. With no doubt remaining on the science, the daily news reminding us of damages to come, and an emerging global consensus on the most effective policy proposal, now is the time to act. The current international conference on climate change, COP17, in Durban, South Africa, presents an opportunity to do so. The Obama Administration should go to COP17 and signal its support for a U.S. carbon tax, then come home and work to pass one in the current Congress. Doing so will help preserve more than just the New England seasons I have come to love. For more information on Citizens Climate Lobby, go to www.citizensclimatelobby.org.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011 CLIMATE CHANGE

Seattle of the Midwest Thank you for the Nov. 26 front-‐ page article on Milwaukee's six-‐ decade wet streak. I read a lot about climate change, but I did not realize global warming had already led us into "local wetting." It's strange to think of Milwaukee becoming the Seattle of the Great Lakes. What really worries me is how we will grow enough food for the world's 7 billion-‐plus people with places like here getting more rain but others getting less or at the wrong times. The drought in Texas this summer was historic, and last year Russia halted grain exports due to dry weather. Pakistan and Australia have had massive flooding recently. With carbon emissions rising faster than scientists' worst-‐case scenarios, I fear

we are on track to see millions of people suffering from natural disasters, famine and the civil chaos they lead to. It does not have be this way. A low but rising tax on carbon, fully refunded to each American, would efficiently wean our economy off fossil fuels. Renewable energy is labor intensive, so a "fee and dividend" plan like this would create more jobs than it cost. Compared to floods, food shortages and resource wars, it is a bargain. And if we get on it soon enough, we may even preserve the character-‐building winters we in Milwaukee so love to complain about. Michael Arney Wauwatosa

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, DEC. 3, 2011

Climate change A bouquet to the U-‐T for publishing Marshall Saunders’ very informative article about climate change (“Climate debate in search of solutions,” Opinion, Nov. 25) and the front-‐page story Nov. 21 on the impacts of climate change in California. A brick to the U-‐T for publishing the letter to the editor (Nov. 28) regarding CO2 and the fact that it is required for life. Of course CO2 is required for life. In biology, one finds that many things

required in small quantities can be poisonous in large doses. While I realize we all have the right to our opinion in this country, I look for a challenging and intellectually engaging debate when I read the letters to the editor. The U-‐T receives many letters and must make a choice about what to print. With letters like this, I’m wondering if I might soon find one emphatically stating the world is flat. – Judy Berlfein, Encinitas