Giving Thanks for Environmental Progress

 photo Thanksgiving_1861_croped_zps1758106e.jpgWhat gets Americans jumping up and down for joy? We don’t seem to be in a particularly festive mood at this point in time.   And don’t get me wrong; though we all may have many things for which to be thankful in our family lives, we cannot help but be aware of the multi-faceted horrors surrounding us, both domestically and internationally.

That is why I think it’s so sad that the people of the world barely noticed, let alone celebrated, the recent climate meetings between the leaders of China and the U.S. — the world’s two largest contributors of the emissions that are rapidly causing long-term environmental damage.

Though commitments were made with respect to reductions that must be in place by 2030, I’ll be the first one to admit that nothing’s certain in today’s world. But what shocks and disappoints me most about this was how little attention the entire proceeding received. Somehow, the world has chosen to receive this with the same level of enthusiasm it would have granted to an accord between Botswana and Bolivia; apparently, few people understand the gravity of the situation and thus the importance of what just happened.

Given that we’re celebrating Thanksgiving here in the U.S. today, I’d like all Americans to take a critical look at this commitment to international climate stability and our respective reactions to it from the standpoint of left and right wing politics. Let’s start with the right; what do they want? At the risk of oversimplification, they want to see Obama conclude his tenure in office with as few accomplishments as possible, and they stand champing at the bit to nullify any progress that he had in fact made vis-a- vis the environment or any other front.

But what of the left? Well, first, what is a leftist? If the term means anything at all, I would say that it defines a group of people who believe that humankind bears some sort of collective responsibility to take care of one another and all life forms–that happen to be on Earth today, or who may come in the future. Ok leftists, please explain to me how this isn’t one of the single most important events in history, one that has the potential to avert the largest single catastrophe the world has even known.

It bears noting that there are a number of peculiar differences in the attitudes of those on the left and on the right. One of these oddities is that true leftists are advocates for social and environmental justice regardless of its source. For instance, did you know that Barry Goldwater, the most war-hawkish presidential candidate since Andrew Jackson, simultaneously was the greatest advocate for gay rights among serious contenders for the White House?  Similarly, Richard Nixon, a despicable human being if there ever were one, brought along more environmental progress than any other recent president until Obama.

My point?  A leftist doesn’t look a gift-horse in the mouth. When a political force stands ready to make a positive contribution to society, we don’t argue about the nature of the source; we simply say thank you.

I have two requests.

• Admit that, while we haven’t gotten everything we wanted from Obama, we have received a number of extremely important elements of progress and,

• Pass the creamed onions–always my favorite.

Tagged with:
15 comments on “Giving Thanks for Environmental Progress
  1. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    The real issue here is: what are the NET costs.

    Your antagonist doesn’t grasp the concept of externalities… so she only sees a “cost” to changing the current paradigm.

    I’ve heard this referred to as “silo budgeting”… Counting the beans inside your silo and not being concerned with or even aware of the bigger picture.

    If you want to target this correctly – you account for how much it costs society for our status quo… then look at the cost for a different paradigm. If you just look at the beans in the silo regarding “direct costs to blow up mountaintops, load coal into train carts, transport coal, unload and pulverize the coal, burn the coal in a 70-year old power plant, then manage the electricity grid with the electricity produced…” you get a net “cost” of ~$30-$60/MWh.

    Your antagonist would nod and just assume that since that’s all the beans in her silo, that’s all that is of any consideration.

    But of course there’s the cost for real estate value in a 50-mile radius of the mountaintop removal, there’s the health care costs for people living near that area, there’s the energy security costs of transporting the coal, there’s the health care costs of people living within 50 miles of the coal plant, there’s increased maintenance and agriculture costs due to acid rain, there’s costs to society from the burden of water consumption, climate change accommodation costs, the intangible cost of irrevocably reducing a mountain to rubble, etc…

    If you do comprehensive accounting, the NET cost to our society from coal sourced electricity might well be between $150 and $250/MWh.

    This dramatically alters the landscape of the question of “How do you pay”? If you are silo budgeting and assume the transition is from $30/MWh coal to $70/MWh wind (in a region of heavy penetration) or $150/MWh solar (in a region of high sun), or $160/MWh nuclear power… and you’re looking to transfer 1.6 billion MWh… The net cost would be in the neighborhood of $160 billion/year over the next 30 years (that sounds like a lot of money).

    But if you have a comprehensive accounting analysis and show that you are transferring $200/MWh coal into $70/MWh wind and $150/MWh solar and $160/MWh nuclear power… and you hope to transfer all 1.6 billion MWh/year… Now you’re looking at SAVING between $45 billion and $150 billion/year for the next 30 years. The problem is those savings will be distributed in ways that won’t be easily credited to the change in power paradigm.

    I believe your antagonist is a fool.

    FWIW, I consider myself a centrist/pragmatist. I think a good definition for a leftist is one who wants to help progress society without consideration of the cost, while a good definition for a rightest is one who considers the cost without any concern for progressing society… Obviously a balanced person would lean one way or the other, but still understand the need for his/her opposite. The unfortunate thing about the republican party today is it is neither right nor left… it’s just hate and rage, without concern for cost, and with no consideration for progressing society… It’s just an antagonistic force without any goals.

  2. Larry Lemmert says:

    Without picking a political side just look at the deal. The forced move to renewables with no guarantee of economic sustainability can maybe be justified if the planet is saved. The deal is a poor one at best if the Chinese are allowed to increase green house gas emissions until 2030. The painful cuts made by the U.S. Are effectively offset by the Chinese. Meanwhile, the U.S. Is left in the dust in a world dominated by the Chinese who don’t seem to care whether we or their own citizens are choking on toxic fumes that are unprecedented in magnitude and scope. We got snookered on that deal.

    • Ben Wheeler says:

      If you assume the party you are bargaining with isn’t going to keep their part of the bargain then you are never going to get anywhere. This is our lives we are bargaining for. Get serious. Don’t you think the Chinese are interested in survival of the planet too? They can’t go to another planet.

      • I totally agree. We may not completely understand or trust the Chinese, but what you write here is completely correct: they are people like us, who share the same planet with us. Moreover, their air pollution problem caused by coal plants is the source of 80 times more deaths per year than ours.

    • Glenn Doty says:

      Larry Lemmert,

      What is at stake here is prestige. It’s one thing to say something like “I will not spy on other nations”, and then be caught spying. No-one believed that you weren’t spying to begin with… and it’s just noise and positioning for leverage in the next cycle of talks if you get caught “breaking your word”..

      But this is something different. If China fails to live up to their bargain, it would be assumed that they COULD NOT achieve their goals. The Chinese government would literally choose any other option than to be seen as being incapable to live up to what they promise. That’s why they’ve been so hesitant to promise anything like this.

      It’s one thing to prove dishonest – the Chinese don’t give one whit about that… But to prove that they are still too backwards and too small-time to meet their goals? No… They would literally move entire mountain ranges in order to avoid that if they had to. I have no doubt China will honor their agreement. I worry that the U.S. will fail just because we’re procrastinators.

      As for the “painful cuts”. No. We gain more than we lose by shifting to wind in good wind zones and solar in high sun zones and geothermal in shallow heat well zones and nuclear everywhere else… and higher efficiency everywhere period. Just because you chose to ignore 80% of the cost of coal doesn’t mean it isn’t a factor… It’s a realignment, but so long as we focus on the goal and not randomly assigned technophilia… then it will save us more than we spend.

      What China has promised is a far tougher goal than what we have promised. They are still a poor nation, desperate to achieve basic lifestyle improvements, and they’ve promised to slow that down and invest heavily in long-term gains while they are in desperate need of immediate gratification. We had our massive, extremely dirty ramp-up… and then from a position of luxury we are now shifting to greater efficiency. We’re asking them to delay luxury in order to shift to greater efficiency. That’s asking a lot… and it’s a much tougher challenge.

      • I’m not an expert on the subject, but I agree with you. They seem to be willing to go to absurd lengths and inflict severe wounds onto themselves to maintain prestige, e.g., cutting the industrial production in Beijing so Obama could see across the street when he got there.

      • Glenn Doty says:

        Craig,

        I don’t think anyone is an expert on China..
        🙂

        But it seems to me the thing that their leadership desires more than anything else is the respect that they consider due to a great civilization.

        I think they’ll either meet their goal or break their society trying, and they’ve set a very tough goal.

      • Larry Lemmert says:

        Glen, I agree with you completely if the logical energy mix you propose is adopted. We could get rid of coal quickly if we made a concerted move to the renewables that depend upon 4th generation nuclear to bear the base load of power.
        In the real world, the environmentalists with a capital E would block most initiatives with innane demands for absolute pure outcomes. Even geothermal comes under attack for possible earthquake causation. Wind is blocked by esthetics and greed of nearby landowners who do not get the royalty payments. Solar is blocked by a desert tortoise.

        We will get there but I don’t think it will be because of treaties. It will happen when the cash flow of the consumer and business are enhanced by shifting to renewables. Government incentives stripped of political favoritism and graft may help but government has few controls to prevent waste when it is other people’s money. JMO

  3. Francis Knize says:

    Let economics do the talking. Alternative energy cost the same as natural gas. Now we’ve reached a turning point. Forget Obama and China with just moving the plan sooner a decade. I worry about this connected with UN initiatives, and blue hats banging down my door because I have a wood stove.

  4. Here is, I think, one of the reasons this was not met with more fanfare. Aside from the fact that the consolidated corporate media – with its multifarious fossil fuel alignments – is not excited to talk about our effects on our climate in any case… in this instance, the deal is not especially inspiring to people because:

    It’s not binding. It has no teeth.

    It’s better than nothing, perhaps, or it may be worse than nothing, because it could foster the illusion that something big is actually being done.

    Personally, I still regard it as a positive sign, because I think it may be the beginnings of a response to the many investment houses, asset management firms, and insurance underwriters across the world that are now ever more fiercely urging government action in the face of fossil firm recalcitrance.

    There is arising a deepening competition between the potent interests that profit from the fossilized status quo, and the also potent interests that now clearly see they have serious financial exposure they can’t easily escape (and they therefore realize they have a stake in stopping the climate disruption freight train wreck).

    I pray the first set of interests are triumphant.

    I understand from an interview with a former assistant to Colin Powell that Royal Dutch Shell is looking at two potential scenarios – one in which reason prevails, and the transition to sustainability is smooth, and one where greed prevails and results in widespread conflict – the oil firm expects the latter is more likely. I hope they’re wrong.

    I keep coming back to two small pieces of advice from Gandhi:

    “Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that you do it.”

    “You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.”

    I’m thankful for many things, in this season of reflection and gift-giving, and one of them is that Craig has a good heart and – with his talents, experience and resources – he’s working by his best lights toward a peaceful and sustainable future. I’ve long counted him a rare and remarkable asset to our collective future.

  5. regwessels says:

    Hi Craig, I know the feeling! But Ghandi was right and you just keep the faith brother. Reg Wessels, Founder, Earth Corporation.

  6. Apologies – in my seventh ‘paragraph’ the sixth and seventh words, “I was” should have been deleted.

  7. sparkyjimbo says:

    Hi Craig,

    I believe the Chinese people like people everywhere in the world yearn for a better quality of life and a healthier coexistence on this planet. Small steps are happening in China at a grass roots level that will eventually bring about change in environmental policies. It is the power of the people that change governments, governments don’t change the desires of people. As they said when man landed on the moon every small step is a giant step for mankind. To see some of the changes taking place in China checkout ” China’s war on pollution” & “Turning pollution into fuel” on the Environmental Pollution page at http://www.greeningsolutionsone.com/blog

    Keep up the good work

    Regards,

    James Redman