The Financial Crisis...or Global Warming?

Now that the election is over, the tasks for the new administration are numerous. News articles as of late are discussing whether concerns about the global economic crisis are trumping those wanting to end global warming.

Some in Congress have said the green bubble has burst. Time magazine also recently ran an article saying that the public also really has no idea the battle ahead of them when it comes to solving global warming.

What are your thoughts? Do you think we still have not only the time, but also the “know-how” to tackle global warming?

Noted climate expert Nicholas Stern weighed in last month with his thoughts:

"The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system," said Stern, a former British Treasury economist, who released a seminal report in 2006 that said inaction on emissions blamed for global warming could cause economic pain equal to the Great Depression.

Stern went on to echo the goals of noted environmentalist Van Jones, saying that investing in clean energy can create jobs:

"The lesson that we can draw out from this recession, is that you can boost demand in the best way possible by focusing on low carbon growth in future," Stern said, including greater public spending on mass public transport, energy and green technologies.

So what do you think? How can we blend the solutions to the financial crisis with those related to global warming?

(And just to clarify, the Sierra Club believes in the AND here. There's no need to choose between solving the economic problems and global warming, the solutions are intertwined. Investing in clean energy fights global warming AND creates jobs. See here for more info. We just want to know what your solution ideas are!)

Comments

[Adam Shake]

Back in March, Senator Obama said that he plans to levy fines against polluters and then take that money and invest it in renewable fuels.

This would be a start, as those company's who pollute would be vested in making sure that their profit dollars in this tight economy wouldn't be going towards fines, and those fines that are collected would be going to build green collar jobs and technologies for the future.

This would only be a start though. I for one would like to see the price of gas go up. When gas goes up, peoples interest in renewable fuels increases. (because people don't care unless it affects their wallets and purses) Taxes on gas should increase and these taxes should be used on further renewable energy and fuel development (thereby enhancing the economy)

Just my two cents.

Adam

[Rachel]

It's not an "or" - it's an "and." The New Deal and the WPA are perfect examples that we can do something about the economy while we're doing something else: The government could use this opportunity to create a Green Progress Administration that works on tackling the climate change challenges. The financial crisis happened precisely because of short-term focus: Make as much money as you can now and don't worry about the bills coming due. We should learn from that mistake and invest in our future by fighting the climate change through helping our economy.

[Heather Moyer]

Rachel - You're exactly right. That's how the Sierra Club views it, along with Van Jones, it's an "and" for us. Investing in clean energy fights global warming AND creates jobs. It also boosts the economy.

We're excited to hear opinions from our Hotline readers. I'm guessing that many of them agree with Van and the Club!

[Ed]

"Some in Congress have said the green bubble has burst."
Those same people would have found other reasons to justify their contrarian and out-of-touch views about the economy and the environment.

"Time magazine also recently ran an article saying that the public also really has no idea the battle ahead of them when it comes to solving global warming."
Proponents of solutions addressing climate change have long faced a not-fully informed public due to a inept media's false balance in reporting the unscientific views of climate change deniers.
Plus people do not like change of any type, regardless of it concerning with the effects of climate change

[Ed]

And the blog entry title does play into the false choice that we all know is not true. Language can be tricky that way. Let those who don't see the "and" put the "or" out there, but we who do see the "and" shouldn't do their work for them.

[John Fahey]

The green revolution is just getting started. It would be foolish not to invest in clean energy now. It can create jobs here in the US that can't be outsourced.

Also there are projections once the economy comes back oil prices will jump up higher than they were last summer. OPEC has been slashing production to stop the price from falling. We should be creating more incentives for plugin and electric cars.

[Brian Hamburg]

Efficiency is the first step, but intractible barriers to efficiency markets persist in the enormous realm of rental and low income housing. One significant breakthrough is adoption of a "pay as you go" program (see PaysAmerica site run by Energy Efficiency Institute - some bright and dedicated people in Vermont who have run up against brick walls without utility or government assistance). The completely market-based program allows private lenders (backed by utility guarantys) to pay for efficiency in homes and apartments and the THEN current tenant or resident pays a monthly payback charge to the utililty on their bill which is then paid to the lender. The resident pays less even with the payback charge, so he is happy. The local economy, including landlords and efficiency providers, are happy with the business and improvements to housing. The utilities must get on board, and that is where government could mandate participation in this non-subsidy, non-charity plan. It could really work. If the resident moves out, the next person who turns on utilities pays (from the savings).

[John Blair]

We can and must solve the climate crisis which will bring with it enormous economic opportunity.

However, both of those are in jeopardy if we continue to squander billions trying to keep the coal dinosaur alive.

[David O'Leary]

We should advocate that the federal stimulus package which is already under discussion include using some of the infrastructure money for energy efficiency programs (government building retrofits, training and residential retrofits), and that any of the transportation infrastructure projects should be transit and not new sprawl inducing roads. As long as the funds are administered carefully and effectively, the program successes can be used to justify addition programs later on.

[Mike Maybury]

What can WE do?
1. Change to a wholefood plant based diet. It will help our health as well.
2. Live near work/ school/ shops etc.(or work from home)
3. Insulate our homes.
4. Shower rather than bath, saving water and fuel.
5. Reduce heating. Ensure just sufficient ventilation.
6. eat food cold (salads/fruit/nuts) when possible. Use microwave rather than oven, except for large families.
7. Buy most efficient electric gadgets when replacing.
Government can help with suitable legislation.
Energy companies should be obliged, by government, to charge less for energy units initially. Prices should rise per unit as consumption rises. Energy companies should offer insulation etc. free and recoup the outlay by charging on energy bills. Total bills should be no higher, even lower.
Tax polluters and use money for green technologies and grants.

[Brian Kobernuss]

"[can we] tackle global warming?"
I think we have a chance. But whats important is that there's nothing we cab do but to try.

It is our technology that has gotten us and the overall global balance of things to this point. Our amazing, complex technology which weighs in so, so heavily on only one side of this global balance, and simultaneously propels our race further along a super-accelerated curve of pseudo-evolution which only increases our ability to weigh even more heavily on that single side of the balance by increasing our population by exorbitant amounts.

We have used our technology to push this balance to the tipping point; the point where the balance will have a hard time - maybe even cannot - right itself. Therefore, it is US that must not only remove this weight from the heavy side of the scale, but push the scale back the other way.

It is a sign of great intelligence that we have been able to create the technologies that we have.

We must now use this intelligence to develop technologies that give us the power to push the balance back where it needs to be for the planet to function healthily.

That which has wrecked us is now the only thing remaining that can save us.

[Catherine]

For starters, how about a two-fer? Use some of that bailout money to shore up US auto manufacturers on the condition that the funds be used to re-tool for production of electric and/or hybrid vehicles which should constitute, say, 80% of each manufacturer's fleet output, meet seriously lowered CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)standards, and have low- to mid-range price points. This tackles the economy and the carbon, not to mention pollution-caused diseases such as childhood asthma. It's a start.

[Debbie]

Public transit shouldn't cost more than it does to drive to work or school, and it should be pushed as the better way to get from point A to point B. In metropolitan areas, local public transportation must be subsidized to make it affordable and to lure people out of their cars. A larger ridership will increase demand for more routes and more frequent service, which will actually bring in more revenue for public transportation districts and (possibly) lead to less need for subsidization in the future.

[Elaine]

Something interesting I've found is no one seems to want to address one of the roots of these two problems. The US has to take the lead and be an example. Overpopulation is another problem that is often not brought up due to its perceived controversial nature. We can't sustain more and more people and expect no consequences. The less people there are, the more for all. More jobs, better environment, better finances etc. A linear system can't exist on a finite planet. Corporations and politicians don't want to deal with this issue, so it will have to be dealt with on a grassroots level. They are often the problem, due to their benefiting from their own systems. One national organization I've found helpful for data is Population Connection.

[Bob]

Just a hurried (harried?) thought: The War on Global Warming is being waged mostly by visionaries, I think. Visionaries are in the vast minority of the descendants of carnivorous apes.

We need a Mad (Avenue) type campaign to bring home the cost of Global Warming - to bring the vision into the individual purses of Greed as well as of Altruism, and of suffering , semi impoverished wage earners as well as of wealthy CEO's and their Platinum Parachutes.

PS - Health concerns might be a good selling point, and, to a few but powerful: the cost of health even more importantly.

For many - we just love Planet Earth as a unified Plant and Animal Kingdom. But that may become a fleeting luxury that we will ill-afford.

[Bob Morris]

As long as we think in terms of "us" informing "the public" or "us" acting individually we will be unable to effect the cultural changes that are required to address climate change. We need to become "the public". That requires a different mindset. We need to listen more than we speak, learn more than we teach, be friends with those whom we want to share, or even just understand, our world view. As we learn to celebrate our commonalities with those we now view as "not us", we will enable the broad social and environmental conscientiousness that will allow resolution of economic and climate change challenges.

[Margaret Wortz]

I think we can do it with the thoughtful leadership that will come from Obama. I have confidence that he will consult with the most knowledgeable minds and organizations and put the right people in charge.

I do have an idea though. Why not give out energy efficiency purchase vouchers as one part of the economic stimulus package. They will have a dollar value, but can only be spent on items that will increase your home's energy efficiency, like insulation, hot water heater blankets and timers, new windows, etc. They may also be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that gets over 35-mpg or bus and metro passes. Persons who do not need them and live in apartments and also have efficient means of transportation can sell their vouchers for less than face value or give them to relatives - this exchange won't matter because the bottom line is that in the end they can only be used to purchase energy efficient items. No matter what, XX number of dollars will be spent on energy efficiency items, thus stimulating the economy in sectors that really need it right now while also helping to reduce energy usage. Win - Win.

Apartment owners may even want to offer monthly rent deduction incentives to tenants in exchange for their vouchers since tenants may not need them. The landlords can collect them and use them towards the purchase of solar or new energy efficient improvements.

But this is only part of what can be done to conserve as we begin to build new energy infrastructure. I'm sure there are a lot of well thought out ideas. I like the ideas of energy holidays from time to time too, etc.

Mag

[Ned Ford]

The heavy lifting is being done by a handful of people who have taken the time to understand utility economics and the barriers to efficiency. Tiny shifts in incentives to utilities unleash hundreds of millions of dollars in efficiency spending. We can't expect to solve global warming or the economic crisis if we're not willing to get serious about understanding the nuts and bolts of the solutions. How many people realize that efficiency costs 20% of the price of new generation, or that 45 mpg fleet fuel average was cost-effective when gasoline cost 85 cents a gallon in 1988?

If people want to contribute to the solution and not just be spectators, they will take it upon themselves to understand the true barriers to efficiency, the real economic savings which are available, and get behind the changes we need. Global warming will be solved by electric and natural gas utility efficiency programs, combined heat and power, and in about ten years we'll figure out how to make zero energy buildings systematic, and solar will become cheaper than new fossil plants. We already have the technology to make an economic recovery based on climate. But we're not holding the debate needed to put it into place.

[John A. Jauregui]

This election saw most Global Warming initiatives fail, for good reason. The principle reason is that most consumers, farmers, ranchers and foresters understand two things. First, global warming is good, not bad. Second, carbon in general and carbon dioxide in particular is good, not bad. Higher average temperatures together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduce crop failures and improve crop, grazing and forest production. Those two factors are the principal forces greening the planet and feeding all of us today. Liberal and eco-cults want to torpedo that winning combination. Why? Perhaps readers have some ideas here.

[Margaret Wortz]

Yes, in response to what is written above - I have some ideas, first, it is not a wining combination, if you learn more about the real science behind global warning you would see that this is not a matter just concerning liberals. You would see why it is harmful - how we are poised to go beyond the tipping point for the rapid increase in greenhouse gasses - then you will perhaps change your mind.

Naturally, we would like a planet that can sustain life for humans as well as many other types of animals and we would like a bright future for our children. This is something we all care about.

About the government voucher idea for stimulating the economy. The vouchers would need to have an ordinary cash value, so that those who really needed to do so, could cash them in at the bank and get whatever they need. However, if recipients were to choose to use their vouchers to purchase energy efficiency products, or for home improvement projects through contractors to increase the energy efficiency of their homes, the vouchers could have a much higher face value for these purchases. For example, the cash value if you take your vouchers to the bank and deposit them, is 500.00. If you decide to use some of them to by energy efficiency products, the ones you use for this purpose are worth twice as much when given to the retailer, or contractor. When the retailers or contractors cash them in with verification of the sale of an energy efficient product or home improvement, they get perhaps twice the face value.

This is just an incentive that can be used to encourage people to reduce energy use while at the same time stimulate the economy in areas that have been hurt the most, like retail and construction.

Naturally, improving our energy infrastructure by increasing more wind and solar is the most important thing we can do, but we need to do absolutely everything we can. We need to find ways to use less energy at the same time that we are creating more green sources of energy.

[Dr. Michael Harris]

The economy and global warming are different facets of the same problem. The economy will not truly recover until we can move to sustainable energy. Both of economic and energy goals can be accomplished simultaneously, synergistically.

[Toronto life insurance brokers]

I believe change has to come from the "bottom" - from consumers. Strict government precautions can have very negative impact on economy (especially universal emissions reducing policies). I think this summer it was clearly visible the change is possible - I think all of us in the USA or Canada have noticed rise in hybrid car use, public transport use and similar - even the statistics say Americans lowered their miles per year status. Change is possible, but WE have to want it, not the governments...
Regards,
Lorne

[oil stocks]

Good post.This election saw most Global Warming initiatives fail, for good reason. The principle reason is that most consumers, farmers, ranchers and foresters understand two things. First, global warming is good, not bad. Second, carbon in general and carbon dioxide in particular is good, not bad...