Red, Green and Blue: The Hairshirt Response to Global Warming
Editor's note: We're proud to revive Red, Green and Blue, our weekly political feature. We've made some changes: first, our new writer Shirley Siluk Gregory will represent the progressive side; Jimmy Hogan will continue to take the conservative position in these debates. Second, we're trying out a new format — Shirley and Jimmy will each give "opening statements," and then debate each other in the comments of the post. You're welcome (and encouraged) to join the fray!
Topic: Major sacrifice by American citizens is necessary to meet the challenges posed by climate change and other environmental problems.
Shirley: Imagine, for a minute, that your doctor has called to deliver a "bad news, good news" diagnosis.
The bad news? Over the next 20 years, you're very likely to develop a serious, chronic disease with painful, debilitating and life-altering effects.
The good news? If you radically alter your habits now, you can save yourself from the worst, long-term symptoms of your disease. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
So the question is, would you do it? Would you sacrifice some of life's pleasures and make the hard choices necessary today to gain yourself a healthier, happier future in years to come?
By now, I'm sure, you've seen the analogy to global warming: a little pain now puts off a lot of pain later, according to the best of what science is telling us today. Unfortunately, even many green-minded types aren't yet talking about the real and drastic changes we would need to start making today to keep the impact of global warming from becoming catastrophic in years to come. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Toyota Priuses and carbon offsets alone won't cut it.
Jimmy: As much as we feel it is important to sacrifice for those things in which we truly believe, I'm convinced that sacrifice may have the unintended consequence of doing more harm than good; especially when that sacrifice is imposed on society at large. History teaches that common sense incentives combined with innovation and technology will solve the world's environmental problems faster and less painfully than any manner of sacrifice imposed or otherwise. America's market economy is the best friend the environment has and is the best hope of dealing with a growing world population and increasing world environmental concerns.
Let the fun begin!
Tags: Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, politics, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
April 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Welcome to the GO blog, Shirley!
I’ve read a little bit of your earlier writing and, I must say, aside from having a common goal of a better world; I don’t think there’s a whole lot we agree on relating to the means.
We do agree we want a better world for us and our children though, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I think it would be best to define “sacrifice” since it’s a little vague from both statements.
We could all start sacrificing the elderly and disabled to Gaia. (I’m kidding)
April 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I think what we are discussing is sacrifice as a matter of degree.
It would seem that Shirley is interested in a significantly larger degree of sacrifice than I am.
I personally think innovation and technology are a good bet. I’d concede to a environmental/geopolitical tax on oil as well. I think telling someone they can’t own a Hummer is counter-productive though and down-right un-American.
Oh… and just to get it out there; I don’t buy the whole CO2 argument. There… I’ve said it… I’m one of the deniers!
April 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
If Shirley wants to sacrifice, though, that’s cool with me.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I’m a big fan of individual liberty and not such a fan of the government telling me how I should live my life.
Mandatory cut backs on our lifestyle or going backwards wouldn’t be very “progressive”. But if you, as an individual, want to do that, I’ll support that.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
No Gaia sacrifices, please — I'm progressive, not New Age-y! : )
Yes, the term "sacrifice" is vague (just wanted to get the ball rolling). So let me offer some specifics because, if we're serious about staving off the worst that global warming could bring us, we need to start implementing some radical changes in the way we live now, including:
It's only through such far-reaching, ambitious changes — "sacrifices," for those of us who've long enjoyed far greater luxuries than most of the world — that we can hope to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at or close to current levels. Beyond that, the science tells us, the greenhouse effect goes into overdrive, firing up all sorts of feedback loops that make global warming even harder to reverse … and inreasingly raise the possibility that we'll see average temperature increases of more than 2 degrees Centigrade. That's the point at which the effects of warming become potentially "catastrophic."
April 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
A global carbon rationing system…
That’s what Kyoto was all about and we saw how it evolved into a wealth redistribution treaty… our wealth to the undeveloped world with a UN appointed board as the arbiter. We couldn’t even use our own forests as carbon sinks… we had to buy credits from undeveloped nations. No thanks.
Aggressive energy-efficiency standards for new housing construction (homes are responsible for a large chunk of energy consumption) and a retrofitting program to make existing homes as energy-efficient as possible;
I think tax credits can go a long way to help here. I spent about $5000 on new doors and windows at my house this year and got a $487 tax credit back. That combined with replacement of a bad thermostat with a new digital literally cut my energy bill in half.
I guess energy efficiency codes could be considered too… that builder grade crap that was on my house to start with was pitiful. You’ve got to be careful here though because it really starts to creep in on affordability and I think greater access to home ownership should be our goal not less.
The use of carbon capture and sequestration technology at coal and gas plants;
I could go for some of that: I like this plan better though.
A rapid expansion in all feasible renewable energy sources, including wind, wave and solar;
That sounds great on paper but when you run the numbers it’s hard to beat coal for powering the grid. Nuclear may have a shot as a substitute but it obviously suffers with its own problems.
An en masse switch from an emphasis on individual transportation to mass-transit modes;
Mass transit is already ridiculously subsidized. Nobody wants it. We need flexibility of autos to keep our economy vibrant.
A massive reduction in air travel, which is both greenhouse gas intensive and for which there is no feasible low-emissions alternative;
There you go messing with the economy again.
A drastic change in the way we shop, with a greater focus on local shops and delivery-making warehouses over big-box retailers and suburban shopping malls.
I think the internet is showing a shift toward this already. And you certainly won’t find me defending Wal-Mart with their over-congested aisles and walk-a-mile parking lots. Again though, it’s not going to be me that this hurts when you go after them though… it’s going to be some single mom with three kids trying to stretch her budget with lower prices.
Let me throw this one at you. Let’s develop a way to tag and insure the individual rather than the car so there isn’t so much penalty to having multiple cars. Now that would be painless… and instead of driving my CRV to work every day I could only use it when I needed to tow my WaveRunner or something. I could then register and insure this Saturn SL1 I’ve got and use it as a daily driver getting about 10 – 15 more miles per gallon. Not a huge thing for me but think of people who buy big SUVs as family cars. What if there was no substantial penalty to having a smaller car as a daily driver and saving the Ford Exponential or the Chevrolet Subdivision for family trips?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Global carbon rationing system
How could you ever enforce something like this without a Gestapo-like organization or having people turn in their neighbors for having a few too many barbecues?
Gestapo organizations = bad idea
Aggressive energy-efficiency standards for new housing construction
I think the invisible hand of the free market is producing more energy-efficient houses already. And because of the success of the American economy, many people can afford to build environmentally friendly houses. Building and retrofitting houses costs a lot of money. A global economy with a strict carbon rationing system would go stagnant or even collapse and with less wealth, fewer clean energy solutions would be available.
Carbon capture and sequestration technology
No comment at the moment.
Rapid expansion in all feasible renewable energy sources
Again, the invisible hand is doing this as technology improves and beats out conventional energy sources. Public opinion also affects new energy sources.
An en masse switch from an emphasis on individual transportation to mass-transit modes
This doesn’t work so well in rural areas where everyone has different starting points and different destinations. In urban areas, there is already mass-transit systems. Perhaps I don’t understand what you want, Shirley. Carpooling can be a great environmental and economic saver, but it doesn’t work out for many people.
A massive reduction in air travel
Ehhh, this is just sad. A great deal of global economy depends on air transportation and a massive reduction could deal a deadly blow.
I think most of these ideas would require people to willingly accept a much lower standard of living and you’ll face a lot of opposition trying. While the wealthy US may be able to afford to make some of these changes, the entire third world cannot afford to make wise environmental choices.
Or perhaps they wont need to change since third world is the new standard with these strict policies?
Why don’t we also promote technology that will allow humans to adapt to changes rather than just trying to prevent the inevitable (or it certainly sounds that way from your last paragraph) doom?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I wonder what Leonardo DiCaprio and Paris Hilton would think about all of this?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Re: A global carbon rationing system … "That's what Kyoto was all about … "
Actually, the system I'm talking about would go far beyond Kyoto, which would only reduce carbon emissions by 5.2 percent by 2012 (not nearly enough to curb warming to the extent necessary). It wouldn't include any of the hocus pocus of carbon offsets, either, which can be either unverifiable in terms of their effectiveness or even counter-productive. Everybody gets an equal allotment, across the board.
Re: Aggressive energy-efficiency standards for new housing … "I think tax credits can go a long way to help here … "
I'm all for tax credits for those who can afford the upfront expense of improving their homes the way you did, Jimmy. But there needs to be a system in place to help seniors and other low-income home-owners do the same; right now, they suffer the double whammy of not being able to afford home improvements AND of having to pay to heat and cool drafty, poorly insulated homes.
You're right about the "builder-grade crap," too. That's why stricter building codes need to be put in place … and enforced. Without teeth, better codes won't result in better construction.
Furthermore, better-built homes don't have to be priced out of reach of low-income buyers (nor should they). European builders of passivhauses (which maintain comfortable living temperatures despite having no active heating or cooling systems) report they can construct such homes for anywhere from 0 to 10 percent over the cost of "regular" homes. Given that, there's no reason we shouldn't make such construction the standard, possibly putting a program in place to help lower-income buyers make up the difference in price. The improvements would certainly pay for themselves quickly: a well-built passivhaus consumes nearly 80 percent less energy than a standard home.