When world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark, last winter to try and change the global trajectory on our increasingly destabilized climate, there was no real hope for a solution. The world’s only political and economic superpower, and one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, had no leverage for truly binding climate change mitigation efforts. Due to a political party that refuses to recognize the truth in climate change and also a political party that refuses to be bold and assertive on such a key issue.

The incredibly watered-down climate change bill that passed the House and died in our do-nothing Senate was not enough. If the United States is to take the lead in a new green global economy, assure our energy security indefinitely and attempt to mitigate the damage from an unstable climate, we need new ideas. Here are some of mine.

Let’s define the goal: Bring down atmospheric carbon dioxide to roughly 350 parts per million (it currently stands at 389 parts per million and is increasing). The grassroots organization, 350.org, is preaching this gospel and defining the goal to an incredibly complex problem that leaves most baffled and apathetic. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases ought to be brought down to sustainable levels as well, but carbon dioxide is the biggest immediate threat.

So how do we bring down carbon dioxide levels? We need to do two things: invest in clean energy to set the stage for a complete economic transition away from dirty energy sources and stop consuming so wastefully. One is a matter of policy, the other a matter of social action.

Policy-wise, let’s increase grants for clean energy development, open up offshore areas for wind power instead of dirty drilling rigs and start building 21st century nuclear power, with less waste, more safety and zero greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to credibly calculate a date when the United States will no longer use dirty, coal-powered electricity and actually stick to it. Cap and trade is a nice idea, but the reality is it will become overly politicized and let domestic coal off the hook. Which is exactly what we saw with the last climate bill.

As a central theme of a new climate change bill, I propose the most universally hated word in politics: taxes. Emitting carbon dioxide, as a practice, should be taxed. The greatest incongruity at the heart of our climate problems is the underpriced commodities of oil and coal. They are priced according to their extraction cost, which ignores long-term environmental costs, while carbon dioxide emissions are one of the biggest externalities that are unaccounted for in our global economy.

So let’s tax carbon. This new tax revenue will help pay for renewable energy investments. In addition, it will help the least well-off among us pay necessarily higher energy prices, with subsidies for people under the poverty line. It’s a tough pill, but also a far more effective treatment than cap and trade.

So what are the consequences to inaction? First off, the United States will continue to hold the world hostage to the anti-science, climate change deniers, who tend to make a lot of money for their ‘favorable’ opinions. Already, it is estimated that our world will heat up between 2 to 5 degrees centigrade over the next century. A 2-degree increase in the global average temperature would be the tipping point in which warmer temperatures will begin to accelerate the greenhouse effect. Currently, there are vast amounts of the greenhouse gas, methane, trapped in stretches of permafrost across Canada and Russia. What happens when that permafrost thaws permanently and releases all of that methane?

When oceans warm, they become less able to absorb carbon dioxide (oceans currently absorb almost half of all carbon dioxide emissions). An unstable climate will likely harm our already dwindling forests, which also absorb carbon dioxide. Let’s not actively push our only planet off the edge because we know exactly what the problem looks like, and we certainly have enough American ingenuity to take the lead if we act quickly.

How can a student get involved? Check up on your congressmen and senators: They may actually be one of the many do-nothing politicians in D.C. who would rather gamble away our environment in favor of short-term cost issues. Activism starts locally, and getting your friends and family to examine their energy habits, as well as making them more informed voters, is always a good start.

In November, many climate change deniers and apologists for our heating planet get to stand for election, so vote them out of office. If they aren’t running against anyone this November, call or e-mail them and politely ask why they deny science in favor of polluting industries. Perhaps ask them why they oppose the idea of America investing in the growing green economy China has been actively supporting. Maybe even ask them if their decision is based in the national interest or if it has something to do with those large campaign donations from various polluting industries. The answers may surprise you.

Changing the world starts by challenging the status quo. Currently, we are on a crash course with an unpredictable climate that will vastly affect the globe and the way people live. Are you just gonna let it happen?

Luke Lanciano is a junior political science major. His column appears every Tuesday, and he can be reached at lllancio@syr.edu.

 

Published on October 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm