Taking Action

This past week, President Obama, through the EPA, released an ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30% from 2005 levels by the year 2030. Despite the plan focusing mostly on coal-produced pollution, we are finally moving in the direction we should have been decades ago. Of course, those in the coal industry are screaming bloody murder and their fellow climate deniers are saying this is all about killing jobs to enforce a political ideology. While there may be a loss of some jobs and a general decrease in coal-mining, it is likely more jobs will be created as the energy sector continues to undertake innovation in sustainable, cleaner forms of energy production.

A unique aspect of this carbon-cutting plan is that it relies on individual states to make decisions on where to make cuts and undertake energy-investment opportunities. Much like the European Union allows its member nations to implement many of its environmental regulations in their own individualized ways, this allows states to be flexible in how they will actually achieve these cuts. Some states have already met the goals, while others will be given credits that take into account that their energy production largely comes from coal. Far from limiting the country and individual states in economic terms, this promotes innovation as well as flexibility which is a good thing when dealing with such a complex issue. Opponents may claim that China will more than make up for what we don't dump in the air, but there are signs that isn't true. In addition, it finally looks like America is showing that it is willing to take part in the international need to cut carbon emissions. America is a leader on many issues, but has been far behind on the challenge of global warming and climate change. It is entirely possible that with our nation finally taking important action on carbon emissions, other nations that have been holding back will follow suit.

Again this is an ambitious plan, but for those of us who want to see meaningful change there is a need to stay vigilant. The plan is up for public comment over the next year, which means there will be plenty of opportunities for opponents and the coal industry to water this plan down. Beyond that, power plant emissions are just a fraction of overall human-based carbon pollution. We would see the most immediate benefit if greater regulations were placed on transportation emissions. Cars, trucks, planes, anything that runs on oil-based fuel puts a large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fuel-efficiency and the push to move away from fossil fuel-powered vehicles (including planes) needs to be stressed to our lawmakers. It's up to us to make sure that regulators, lawmakers, and industry pay attention to the science of carbon emissions and global warming.

Lunacy and Money

My last post briefly mentioned that there may be a reason why people are not responding to the facts that climate change is indeed happening. We may be evolutionarily ill-equipped to deal with long-term, long-range threats because of our brain habits. There is that, but then there is the fact that plenty of leaders, both business and politicians pour money and rhetoric into discrediting climate change along with meaningful action to mitigate it. Today's post looks at the latter.

I was scrolling through Huffington Post today when I came across this article stating that a House Republican added an amendment to a Military Budget bill that forbade any usage of the ascribed funds to research the threats associated with climate change. The bill and amendment passed thanks to all Republicans and four Democrats voting in favor of the measure. The actual amendment is peppered with Tea Party and climate denial catch phrases such as Agenda 21 and the IPCC Fifth Report. No funding provided by the US government may be used in any research that may actually validate and assess the threats posed by climate change. This comes despite the fact that the Defense Department has repeatedly acknowledged the threat that climate change poses to national/global security and its military operations around the world.

So who is the House Republican that was behind this short-sighted amendment? It is none other than West Virginia Representative David McKinley. Rep. McKinley has a long history of climate denial. Last fall, he got himself embroiled with scientists over whether increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases global temperatures or not, passing himself off as an expert on the issue. You may have had the same thought I did when you saw that Congressman McKinley hails from West Virginia: "Of course! He comes from a state whose entire economy revolves coal." It is not hard to connect the dots between a once powerful industry afraid of disappearing and McKinley's climate denialism.

Some people may not alter their habits or reduce their carbon footprint because they do not comprehend the severity of this long-term, long-range threat and the part they play in that threat. For others - including businesses, it is simply about money. Their virulent, relentless attacks on sound science - science that has been settled for a considerable length of time - is because they don't want to lose money. Individuals like Representative McKinley are in the pocket of these fossil fuel industries, pushing their pseudo-science and denialist drivel to get the money the industry showers over them for campaign or other pet projects they want funded.

McKinley's disregard for the environment is clear. Every time a destructive coal-mining/fossil fuel practice or byproduct is being legislated against, Mr. McKinley always sides with the fossil fuel industry. Congressman McKinley is of the opinion that there is still a debate going on about climate change. His latest action, in regard to the amendment he proposed adding to the Military Budget, shows a man who is reacting to the mainstream acceptance of climate change as fact. He has the industry's back, but not the actual humans who make up his constituency. This is the problem with irrational people who wield power. Fact and reason may surround them, but they can still whip up enough frenzied support to control the direction we take on the environment through the purse strings. We can rejoice that many more are actually convinced of the science both professionally and on an individual level, but we must remain vigilant against those who continue to put forth fiction and flawed policy based on that fiction.