To Till and to Tend

Frankly, I don't think responding to climate change is what's going to drive our economy over a cliff. Doing nothing, however, just might. And on this point, EPA and I seem to be in agreement. About a week ago, EPA released it's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill – and the report confirmed what we knew all along: we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60% without harming the U.S. economy. As Senator Warner (the Bills Republican sponsor) says, "You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”

In fact, EPA forecast that U.S. GDP would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been. In other words, national climate change legislation will only modestly slow a thriving economy.

And that's only half the story. The EPA analysis assumes the U.S. economy will continue to grow unabated absent climate change legislation. In other words, the baseline disregards the costs of climate change. It disregards the rising seas and dying forests and failing agriculture. It disregards the cost of responding to hurricanes and elevating houses. And yet, in one basic regard, EPA and I agree: responding to climate change will not drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.

I'm not as happy as I used to be.  Being a climate change policy advocate is a tough job.  My days are spent working on an issue that could mean the end of the world as we know it.  It's scary – and depressing – spending your waking hours reading about the catastrophic implications of sea-level rise and melting ice caps.  Sometimes it's hard to focus on the hundreds of wonderful, positive things that surround me every day – a phone call from an old friend, a morning when my children sleep past 6:00 am – because these daily gifts are over-shadowed by the apocalyptic threat of climate change. 
And these fears persist when I'm not technically at work.  I was reminded of this reality repeatedly this winter when the temperatures in the DC suburbs crept into the 70s.  I found myself briefly enjoying a picnic in the park – only to feel guilty about my happiness.  After all, it seemed like there was a certain "appearance of impropriety:" how could I be happy wearing short sleeves in the middle of winter? And though part of me appreciated the time I saved this winter by not shoveling my front steps or bundling the baby before running an errand – I also believe these things are the necessary inconveniences of living on the East Coast.
It turns out, I'm not alone.  In fact, there's an emerging field of "ecopsychology" – a cadre of about 120 therapists worldwide who explore the relationship between people and the environment.  The New York Times recently wrote about the phenomenon – focusing, in particular, on people with "global warming anxiety."  One therapist teaches the afflicted to follow a "multistep process that is similar to kicking an addiction."   The prescription includes “'fasts'” from shopping, e-mailing, and the news, while cultivating calmer pursuits like meditation or gardening."  Who knows, it might work – as long as the gardening doesn't occur on a warm winter day.
I, for one, am happy that spring is around the corner.  At least then, I don't have to feel guilty about enjoying a walk in the park!

I'm not an economist, but I know the basics:  Lower the price and people will buy more.  It's true for every industry: From the proverbial widgets of freshman economics class to flat-screen TVs and tomatoes -- and renewable energy.  So, if we want to make people buy renewable energy, shouldn't we make it cheaper for them to buy it? Apparently, the Senate fell asleep during Economics 101. 

Last Wednesday, the Senate rejected a stimulus package that included $5.7 billion in tax incentives for (among other things) the installation of energy-efficient appliances and building improvements.  The package would have given tax breaks to wind-farm developers, appliance manufacturers and businesses that install fuel cells.  The Sierra Club reports that this is the third time in only seven months that the Republican leadership has blocked a package of clean-energy tax incentives.

The sad thing is, this should have been a no-brainer.  For one thing, the breaks were signed into law years ago.  Unfortunately, they are set to expire at the end of the year.  The stimulus package provided an easy vote for a short-term fix to extend the tax breaks while Congress works out a long-term solution.  Moreover, these breaks should have been an easy political win.  As Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist in Washington told the LA Times, these are one of the few things that both the Sierra Club and industry can rally behind.  The IPCC was just given a Nobel prize for finding that climate change is "unequivocal."  NASA just declared that 2007 can claim the dubious honor of tying for the second warmest year since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  Shouldn't we be doing whatever we can to encourage the use of low and no-carbon technology?

As Gristmill reported last week, "These tax credits are good economics and good climate policy."  That's clear to me.  In fact, it should be clear to any student in freshman economics.  It's a real shame that it wasn't clear to the U.S. Senate.