To Till and to Tend

A few days ago, I purchased a sandwich from a local deli. As an afterthought, I asked for an extra piece of cheese for the baby. Before I could take the slice, the counterperson smiled brightly and immediately placed the two-by-two inch square into a 16-ounce cup with a plastic lid. "Is that for here or to go?" she queried, stuffing a three-inch stack of napkins into a plastic bag. As she rang up my order, I surreptitiously returned the napkins to a receptacle on the counter. The cup, unfortunately, would have to be "recycled" into a blog post.

Last week, the G8 announced that they would (with, as the Daily Grist reports, a number of caveats) aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by fifty percent from current levels by mid-century. An ambitious goal, to be sure – yet, the scientific community has told us we need to reduce emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Whether the right number is fifty percent or eighty percent – the numbers are high enough to make your stomach sink and your head spin. What does it mean to cut emissions by more than half? And how can we possibly accomplish this? Certainly, how can we accomplish this when we live in a society that finds it necessary to cover a single slice of cheese with a cup and a lid?

The answer is we can't.

As long as we live in a society where a sandwich is accompanied by its weight in napkins; where a container of yogurt is served with a plastic knife, fork and spoon; and a single gallon of milk is placed inside two plastic grocery bags, we will not win the battle against climate change. Solving the climate crisis is going to require a fundamental change in our national consciousness. We must learn to rethink consumption and redefine our "needs." And we cannot simply defer to the government to make these changes.

Sometimes I get overwhelmed when I think of the enormity of our needed reductions. But the Styrofoam cup is half full: with so much excess, the initial cuts will be easy. In fact, a report released earlier this month by Environment America announced that simple building efficiency measures could reduce US energy consumption by 11%. A December 2007 report by McKinsey and Company identified more than 250 existing technologies and strategies that could reduce US emissions by 28% in 2030. And imagine how we can each augment these numbers with countless changes in our own lives – from taking our own grocery bags to the market to riding public transportation to work.

Indeed, America will come a long way toward addressing the climate crisis when cashiers begin to serve fries without a side of plastic. And tomorrow when I take my kids for icecream, I'll be sure to ask for it in a cone – hold the cup and spoon.

[I'd love to hear your stories about waste – and ways to get to 80 percent. Please share both your experiences with excess and helpful tips for reducing consumption in the comments below]

As an undergrad, my professors explained that climate change would never be solved. Politicians, after all, will only seek solutions for problems that they can tackle in four-year cycles. And people will only seek solutions for problems they can see. But carbon emissions are invisible and global warming would not affect us for generations. Or so we thought.

But now, the effects of climate change are felt on a daily basis. Global temperatures have increased by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This spring, an ice sheet the size of Manhattan crashed into the Arctic sea. The recent listing of the polar bear as a threatened species explicitly acknowledged the role of climate change in their decline. The genocide in Darfur is widely attributed to resource scarcity caused by climate change. In short, climate change is no longer a problem we can shut our eyes to.

Unfortunately, to many people, climate change remains invisible. As reported in Reuters, Tesco, the world's third-largest food retailer, recently announced a plan to end that. It will begin placing carbon labels on 20 products to help consumers see the greenhouse gas emissions per serving of certain items including potatoes, orange juice, cleansers and light bulbs. John Tierney, likewise imagines that consumers would change their behavior if consumers could only visualize their emissions. In a recent article in the New York Times, Tierney, highlights a number of gadgets that would help consumers visualize their emissions. One gadget, called "the Wattson" changes colors based on electricity consumption. Tierney imagines a world where people would wear electronic jewelry to report their carbon use. These flashing mood rings and pendants would immediately allow onlookers to assess the carbon habits of their peers. And, Tierney speculates, "If the delegates to future conferences on climate change are expected to wear illuminated symbols of their energy consumption, they won't be visiting any more spots like Bali."

Tierney isn't alone in trying to figure out ways to make carbon tangible. A team of four teens in England recently won a competition for their proposed invention: the "Enuffometer." The gadget would provide minute-by-minute monitoring of energy use, with results that could be text messaged to the owner's mobile phone – and remotely disconnect wasteful appliances. As the insightful youthful inventors explain, the Enuffometer helps people visualize their emissions since "people find it much easier to fight something they can see." Well put.

Carbon mood rings and the Enuffometer will likely be among the tools of the future to help us visualize our carbon emissions. But other gadgets already exist. The "Kill a Watt" helps users determine how energy is being used around the house – so that they can cut back on wasteful devices. [You can purchase a Kill a Watt (and other energy-saving gadgets) at www.coejl.earthaidkits.com.]

Those of you who read my posts know that, for me, climate change is anything but an invisible problem. To the contrary, I fear its effects are far too visible. But even I could benefit from a flashing reminder when my energy use is excessive. After all, we all need someone to remind us when we've used "Enuff."

[For more on ways that already exist to visualize the effects of climate change, read Liore's May 28 post, "Have to See it to Believe it?"]

-----------

I'd love your thoughts on other ways we could send consumers the right signals about energy use.

There is an oft-told joke about a man in the midst of a great flood.  [for those who have heard this before, feel free to skip to the next paragraph] All about him, people are fleeing the town in droves; however, the pious man refuses assistance.  A jeep drives by and invites him to "hop on board."  The man declines, explaining, "I have faith that G-d will save me." Unable to change his mind, the jeep drives on.  A bit later, as the flood-waters rise, a rescue team drifts by the man's house in a boat. "Hop in," the captain exclaims.  "Don't worry about me," the man retorts, "I have faith that G-d will save me." Unable to change his mind, the rescue team floats by.  A bit later, the flood engulfs the man's house, leaving him to hang from the chimney for safety. A crew in a helicopter spots him and offers a ladder and a lift.  The man declines yet again, declaring with confidence that G-d will save him. The helicopter continues without him. Eventually, the man drowns and he enters heaven.  Dismayed, he approaches G-d and exclaims, "You really let me down! I had faith that you would save me and look what happened!"  "Who do you think sent you a jeep, a boat and a helicopter," G-d replies?

Though told in jest, the joke teaches a valuable lesson.  We cannot be so blinded by our political agenda that we ignore the signs in front of our eyes.  Two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate began a historic climate debate.  As I wrote on the eve of that debate, "simply forcing a national discussion about climate change is a victory."  In many respects, the climate vote was an extraordinary success. Forty-eight senators voted to move to substantive discussion on the bill.  Six others submitted statements to the record indicating that they likewise supported continued debate.  Combined, a comfortable majority in the Senate thus supports aggressive federal action on climate change.  And, as the Union of Concerned Scientists reports, many of those who voted in favor of such action had previously opposed such initiatives – even though the legislation at issue was stronger than bills the Senate has considered in the past.  Fortunately, as Senator Boxer explained, "We [now] have a road map as to where our colleagues are. We will give the road map to the next president so he knows where our colleagues are and where are the consensus areas and where are the difficult areas."

Yet, despite these accomplishments, the climate debate was, in other respects, a tragic missed opportunity.  Like the man waiting on his roof for divine intervention, many members of the Senate seem to be awaiting an intangible sign from above – ignoring the signs that G-d has already sent to Earth. On the second morning of the climate debate, opponents insisted that they were not familiar with the bill due to a handful of technical changes that had been made in its final hours.  In a move witnessed but once a decade, they insisted that the clerk read the bill – all 492 pages of it – on the Senate floor.  For most of the day – more than eight hours – the clerk droned on, reading of offsets and auctions, allocations and subsidies. 

And then G-d intervened. 

At mid-day, thunderclouds descended over Washington, D.C. The sky darkened and rain pummeled the Capitol.  I approached the building amid announcements of a "severe thunderstorm warning" on the Senate intercom system.  The National Weather Service declared a tornado watch with wind gusts of up to 70 mph, admonishing citizens to "take cover" and "move to a safe place" to avoid flash floods. My home outside the Nation's Capitol lost power for two days. 

A tornado warning is disconcerting in and of itself.  But its impact is all the more dramatic when viewed in this context.  As Senator Reid (D-NV) explained on the Senate floor, 2008 is on track to be "the deadliest year in the history of tornado deaths" in the United States.  Since January, more than 110 people have lost their lives due to tornadoes – compared to an annual average of 62.  I don't imply that a single tornado season confirms climate change, but it certainly doesn't suggest that we're heading in the right direction either.  And, if an anomalous tornado season weren't warning enough, G-d has sent a steady succession of reinforcements – in the form of flooding in the Midwest, a drought in California, and a heat wave on the east coast.

NRDC policy director, David Doniger highlighted the curious coincidence of the climate debate and the tornado advisory in his blog.  In it, he challenged readers to "draw [their] own conclusions."  As I heard the weather advisory on the afternoon of the climate debate, I had only one thought:  the bureaucracy of the political process had gone on long enough.  As thunder crashed from the heavens, G-d had sounded a wake-up alarm for 100 Senators on Capitol Hill.  "Do something," He implored.  "Assume your role as my partner in creation, and help me to repair the world."  The next morning, 54 of them heeded that warning and voted to proceed to the debate.  Unfortunately, 46 others are still waiting on their rooftops for a sign…

Months ago, I met with my counterpart from another faith group. I had been working at COEJL for about a week. "Be careful not to get burned out," she cautioned. "This is a marathon, not a sprint." Little did she know, the Jewish people are well equipped for such journeys. After all, we wandered for forty years in the desert before arriving in Israel.

My colleague was right, however, the path to national climate change legislation is a long one. This might not be as obvious to those outside the Beltway. After all, earlier this evening, the Senate opened debate on national climate change legislation. And shouldn't such debate culminate with another vote to pass the bill itself? Alas, it isn't so simple. Senator Boxer has threatened to pull the bill if someone introduces a "poison pill" on the Senate floor. Senator Inhofe would undoubtedly filibuster, preventing a final vote if the bill remained on the floor long enough to allow it. And, of course, even if the Senate were to vote on the bill, it would be an uphill climb to garner enough support for it to move forward. And, if by some miracle, there is sufficient support in the Senate, the House would need to start the process all over again. And assuming the House actually voted on a bill, the President would still have to approve it. Yet, the President has already told us that he doesn't plan to do anything on climate change until 2025.

So, why bother? Why have I been sending out action alerts and letters to Congress? Why have I been calling constituents and meeting with senators and their staff? Indeed, most of us who work on these issues have been in "crisis mode" for the last few weeks - joining daily conference calls to report on the latest "intelligence from the field" as though we're preparing for battle.

Because that is exactly what we're doing. This week's vote and debate is a battle in the midst of a very long war. From the start, people have questioned whether we should be fighting this battle at all. After all, does it make sense to invest so much energy in something that is unlikely to be signed into law?

Clearly, I think it does. And I think you should fight for it, too. Because regardless of whether we pass a climate law this year, simply forcing a national discussion about climate change is a victory. That discussion educates those on Capitol Hill - and each of us - about the resources at stake. Each newspaper article and radio story raises the profile of this issue. And in the next Administration, when the debate begins again, we'll all be a little wiser. We will no longer have to convince the public that climate change is real. We will no longer have to convince our leaders that we can address the problem without derailing the US economy. Instead, we can have a more informed discussion about the best ways to accomplish this.

The Jewish people have a long tradition of enduring hardship to reach our goals. I only hope that - unlike our ancestors in the desert - we actually get to enter the "Promised Land" - a land where all of creation is protected from the threats of climate change.

Click here to urge your Senator to support The America's Climate Security Act (S 3036).

I've been feeling pretty self-righteous lately.  About a week ago, I switched our home power supply to wind.  It had been on my "list of things to do" for months.  Every time I walked into my synagogue, I made a mental note to contact Interfaith Power and Light to learn more about renewable offsets.  And I kept meaning to grab one of the brochures about "clean, green power" on display at my local hardware store.  But, between my packages and my children, I never seemed to have a spare hand or a spare minute.  Last week, I finally decided to make the switch.  And it feels great.

For months, I've asked Senate staffers to support a provision that would require 15% of US energy supply to come from renewable sources by 2030.  I've bemoaned the last-minute omission of this mandate from the Energy Bill, which was signed into law last December.  I've written blogs, issued action alerts, and signed multiple coalition letters about the need to extend renewable energy tax credits to encourage continued investment in wind power.  And then I remembered Gandhi's exhortation: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."  Sure, I'd love to mandate that all Americans purchase clean, home-grown power. And I'd love to provide the incentives to make this economically viable. But climate change is moving faster than the political process – and I can vote for change with my light-switch.   As I wrote when the "We" campaign was first launched on national television, the key is to "mobilize America – and, in turn, empower our leadership." 
It turns out, this satisfaction is fairly cheap to come by.  For about 5 cents more per kilowatt hour – less than $500 per year – I can fuel my home on local wind power, instead of coal.  And you can, too (simply click here to find a green power supplier in your state). 

My purchase comes at a remarkable time.  Last Monday, the US Department of Energy released a new analysis concluding that wind energy could produce 20 percent of US electricity by 2030.  Critically, the report concludes that this energy could be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.  This makes sense.  After all, the Energy Information Administration reports that the United States has the third highest wind power capacity in the world -- higher than Denmark. And the American Wind Energy Association reports that wind power has the potential to provide more than twice the electricity generated in the United States today!

At a time when our government (and each of us) is concerned about a faltering economy and lost jobs, the federal report estimates that the wind forecast will create 500,000 new jobs.  At a time when scientists are telling us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, the federal report concludes that domestic wind capacity alone has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 25% (displacing up to 50% of natural gas and 18% of coal electricity demand). 

As a student in college, my car was emblazoned with the words: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."  The 14,000 kWh my household uses this year will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis.  But imagine the cumulative effect if we all made the switch.  [Fellow COEJL blogger, Nina Beth Cardin imagined just that in this inspirational post]  And imagine how this effect can be multiplied when the political process catches up with popular demand. 

Click here to find out about COEJL's Earth Aid Kit campaign and purchase products that will make your electricity dollars go farther.

Click here for information from the Union of Concerned Scientists about various renewable energy options.

In a rash attempt to alleviate this discomfort, our political leaders have proposed a "gas tax holiday."  For three months, we will (theoretically) spend about 18 cents less per gallon of fuel, or about 2 dollars each visit to the gas station.  Over the course of the summer holiday, the blog Autopia reports that this proposal will save the average American about $30.  Of course, it's unlikely we'll actually see this "tax break" at all, because oil companies will simply raise the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut.  Americans will continue to pay roughly $3.61 a gallon – but now, our nation will lose billions in potential tax revenue, which could be used to maintain our nation's infrastructure.   And at a time when unemployment rates are already rising, the proposed gas tax holiday could cost more than 300,000 jobs.

The flaws of this approach are clear.  Automobiles are the second largest contributor to US greenhouse gas emissions. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount Americans drive – rather than creating incentives for people to drive more?  And what better way to incentivize carpooling and public transportation than to raise the price of gas?  In fact, the market is already creating its own incentives, with AAA reporting a decline in miles traveled and sales of compact and subcompact cars reaching record highs last month – a trend Ford's chief sales analyst has called "the most dramatic segment shift" in his 31-year career. And if we want to encourage the use of clean-burning alternatives to fossil fuels and coal, shouldn't we give tax breaks for those alternatives?  Sadly, our leaders are painfully misdirected. They are offering a tax break on the behavior they hope to discourage – yet, as I described in my February 12 post, they have failed to extend tax breaks on activities they should reward. 

More than 2000 years ago, our ancestors fell victim to a similar scheme.  Left alone in the wilderness at the base of Mount Sinai, the Israelites built a golden calf in a desperate attempt to find security.  The calf, of course, did not offer any answers.  To the contrary, when Moses descended from the mountain, he rebuked the Israelites and repeated his journey to retrieve the Ten Commandments.  The calf was an exercise in futility – a false prophet that never brought its intended reward.

Today, it is our leaders who offer a false prophet – suggesting $30 could ease a troubled economy or eliminate our dependence on foreign extremists who control our oil markets.  Like the Israelites, we need strong leaders who can guide us through times of adversity.  We need leaders who will require our cars to drive farther on less fuel and who will support a growing transit system, who will invest in research on alternative energy and provide incentives for the people who use it.  In short, we need leaders who have the courage to introduce policies that will actually reduce our dependence on oil – so that it does not matter if prices rise. 

[For thoughtful commentary about ways to solve the fuel crisis, visit "Are Gasoline Prices Too High or Too Low" at the blog of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, "Greenlight on Washington."]
[Click here to read a letter from COEJL and a coalition of other faith organizations, businesses, construction companies, environmental organizations, investors, labor, nongovernmental organizations, public health organizations, states, trade associations and utilities seeking funding for tax breaks that matter]

Two weeks ago, the President announced a "momentous" global warming initiative, which essentially validated the status quo for the next two decades. As I wrote last week, this proposal misses the mark. I was not alone. As the New York Times reports, "critics — including environmentalists, scientists and lawmakers — said the effort was too little, too late." And the President's critics were not restricted to the United States. Although the President timed his remarks to kick-off a round of international climate discussions in Paris, the Agence France Press announced that those present at the meeting were universally "dismayed by the tenor" of the President's remarks. And Germany decried the speech as "a step backward."

On Capitol Hill, Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash) dismissed the President's remarks as a "can't-do plan for a can-do people." His concern prompted Representative Inslee, along with Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Henry Waxman (D-Cal) to declare four essential Principles for Global Warming Legislation. These leaders on climate change policy don't simply want to stabilize emissions in 2025 – they propose substantial reductions (15-20% of US emissions by 2020; 80% reductions by 2050). In particular, they ask the United States to introduce legislation to:

1) Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming;
2) Transition America to a clean energy economy;
3) Recognize and minimize any economic impacts from global warming legislation; and
4) Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.

I applaud Reps. Inslee, Markee and Waxman for stepping forward. Their declaration alone won't reduce US emissions. But hopefully, it will create the needed momentum to get a bill introduced in the House. If enough Members join the Principles, it will send an important message to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the President that the American public believes climate change is real and demands that the US respond.

Click here to read the COEJL Action Alert and urge your Representative to support the Global Warming Principles. And tell them that these Principles are just a starting point -- it's time to move beyond simply talking about climate change and to introduce legislation that makes a difference.