Home

Right Action

Being Good

Presumption

Consequences

Climate Change: Global Warming

The evidence for global warming is growing.1 Glaciers are rapidly melting, and sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is shrinking.2 Species are migrating, when they can, as their environment changes, or dying out.3 The climate is becoming more erratic, increasing rain in some regions and drought elsewhere, and tropical storms forming over a warmer ocean are more violent.4 Critics say humans are not the primary cause of these changes,5 but the EPA argues for a different understanding of the facts. “Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

·        Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since preindustrial times are well documented and understood.

·        The atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

·        An ‘unequivocal’ warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906 to 2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.6

·        The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

·        Increasing greenhouse gases concentrations tend to warm the planet.”7

A recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adds that: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human made] greenhouse gas concentration.”8 In these assertions “virtual certainty” (or “virtually certain”) means a “greater than 99 percent chance that a result is true” and “very likely” means a “greater than 90 percent chance the result is true.”9

The EPA also states as very likely: “In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.”10 Yet, “Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms.”11

To respond effectively to global warming, we have to understand the earth’s carbon cycle and how it has been distorted by industrial development.

THE CARBON CYCLE

Carbon is stored on earth in rocks, oceans, fossil fuels, and the soil. Rocks account for the bulk of this carbon. Oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release, but this carbon is used by marine organisms and ends up in sedimentary deposits, so there is no net gain or loss. The carbon cycle uses carbon dioxide to sustain life. Plants use carbon dioxide to make carbohydrates, and organisms consume carbohydrates, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

The earth’s carbon cycle maintained a level of about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere until the industrial revolution. Now, carbon dioxide has reached the level of 380 parts per million,12 and is increasing by over six gigatons per year, largely because of:

·        Fossil fuel emissions. About four to five gigatons of carbon are being emitted into the atmosphere each year from the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.13

·        Soil organic carbon destruction. Due to excessive tillage (cultivation) and soil erosion, carbon in the soil is being oxidized and entering the atmosphere.

·        Deforestation. As forests are burned to clear land or for other reasons, a significant amount of carbon is released into the atmosphere.

To stop global warming, we must address these three distortions of the carbon cycle by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reducing carbon emissions. Atmospheric carbon is absorbed by the ocean, but this part of the carbon cycle is difficult to manipulate. Plants however, readily absorb carbon dioxide, so reforestation, changing agricultural practices and reclaiming marginal land will reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. 

This strategy will require long-term adaptive management of forests and sustainable agriculture. Sustainable forestry involves cutting mature trees and removing dead wood, which maximizes the net carbon dioxide absorption of a forest. As plant life decays, part of its carbon is converted by microorganisms into organic matter, and this is easily oxidized and returned to the atmosphere.  Unlike industrial agriculture, sustainable farming increases the organic carbon held in the soil.14 Thus, the answer to global warming requires reducing fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide, ending deforestation and instituting sustainable forestry, and replacing industrial agriculture with sustainable agriculture. 

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas (GHG). Chapter 11 describes efforts to reduce air pollution due to carbon monoxide, fluorocarbons, hydrofluocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Methane, which is also a GHG, is increasing in the atmosphere largely because more cattle are being raised and fed a diet of corn, which gives cattle gas. Chapters 9 and 12 present arguments for reducing our consumption of beef, which would reduce the number of cattle and thus lower methane emissions.

Water vapor also reflects heat rays back to earth, and there is now evidence that its level in the atmosphere is increasing, at least over some continents.15 The cause, however, is the warming of the earth due to GHGs, so there is no way to address the problem of increasing water vapor without reducing the level of greenhouse gases, which means decreasing our consumption of fossil fuels.

RESPONSIBILITY

To address our environmental crisis, we have constructed ethical presumptions to:

·        Do our duty to restore and maintain the integrity of the earth’s ecosystems.

·        Reduce our ecological footprint by living with greater frugality and gratitude.

·        Care for nature and other species by farming, eating, and living sustainably.

·        Respect the human rights to sustainable development and to a healthy environment.

Now we apply these presumptions to global warming, and then test these convictions by considering the likely consequences of acting on them.

Duty

From 1960 to 1990 “the richest 20 percent of the world’s population increased its share of world income from thirty times greater than the poorest 20 percent to sixty times greater.”16 In this same period, the United States with 5 percent of the world’s people was responsible for about 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.17 These facts support the equitable argument in chapters 4 and 10 that members of industrial societies, like the United States, should accept their duty to pay more of the costs of reducing fossil fuel emissions than people living in less affluent societies.

The first international attempt to reduce GHG emissions is the Kyoto Protocol—an amendment to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). It accepts the moral argument that developed countries have a greater duty than developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and it mandates that industrial countries reduce these emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels before 2012.18 As of June 2007 the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by 174 countries.  President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol and pledged that the United States would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent before 2012.

President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification—arguing that the Kyoto Protocol unfairly “exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.”19

In support of his position, President Bush claims: “The Senate’s vote, 95–0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.”20 This 1997 Senate resolution opposes any international agreement requiring the United States to make reductions in GHG emissions, unless it includes mandatory limitations on developing countries. The Senate also rejected any agreement that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”21

Other objections to the Kyoto Protocol include claims that the scientific evidence for global warming is uncertain, the targets for reducing GHG emissions are unrealistic, and an effective strategy to lower carbon emissions would require “replacing the command-and-control regulatory scheme with flexible results- oriented policies, and providing incentives to install state-of-the-art technologies.”22

Nonetheless, European nations and Japan have accepted the equity argument and also the mandatory regulations of the Kyoto Protocol.23 Under the Protocol, a cap-and-trade program in carbon emissions began in 2005,24 and after 2007 became mandatory for all members of the European Union. A country exceeding its cap in carbon emissions can buy emission credits from another country that has more than met its cap, and thus has credits to sell.25

The United States has yet to create a federal carbon cap-and-trade program.26 Seven states (led by California) and two Canadian provinces have formed the Western Climate Initiate (WCI), which “requires partners to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions, develop a market-based, multi-sector [carbon emissions trading] mechanism to help achieve that goal, and participate in a cross-border greenhouse gas registry.”27 The WCI goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.28

In 2007 the European Union pledged to reduce GHG emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050 from levels measured in 1990,29 and the Group of Eight industrial nations (G-8) agreed to “consider seriously” this goal.30 Because of US opposition, the G-8 did not affirm the binding reductions accepted by the EU. Yet, new research suggests that much more rapid reductions in carbon emissions are required to prevent disastrous climate changes around the world.31

Character

The United States rejects the equity argument, which allocates greater responsibility to developed nations for environmental costs, for the sake of all peoples and future generations. It acknowledges a duty of fairness to other nations, but gives priority to the duty to promote the well-being of American society. Alternatively, we might resolve this conflict of duties by considering the kind of persons that we believe we should be. As we saw in chapter 5, this way of making ethical decisions often involves telling stories. What story would you like your grandchildren to tell about how you responded to the environmental crisis of global warming? 

A story about facing our ethical challenge to reduce fossil fuel emissions would likely involve choices, such as these:

·        Driving a fuel-efficient car and using mass transit whenever possible.

·        Walking more and riding a bicycle, when we can, instead of driving

·        Reducing energy use and waste, recycling more, and consuming less.

·        Eating lower on the food chain to increase agricultural efficiency.

·        Supporting public policies that address the causes of global warming.

In chapter 5 we looked at the stories of Cinderella, Johnny Appleseed, and Bob the Builder, which present characters that have integrity, express gratitude for life, and are frugal. Tales like these prompt us to ask, How might we live with more integrity, gratitude, and frugality? How might we reduce our ecological footprint?32

For those who are religious, there are many compelling stories to consider.  Jewish scripture tells of God bringing the Israelites out of slavery to a fertile land, and commands their descendents to care for strangers because God cared for their ancestors when they were strangers. Christian scripture tells of the Good Samaritan who cared for an enemy, to explain that God calls everyone to love others as we love ourselves. Islamic scripture tells of Noah calling all people to act justly in order to abide by the will of the one God.

These stories do not concern global warming, but every religious tradition at its best promotes stewardship of the earth’s resources.

Relationships

Chapter 6 describes the importance of relationships in making ethical decisions.  Contemporary science verifies that empathy for others is natural, and child psychology confirms the natural development of empathy in young children.33 Being ethical involves acting with empathy and reason out of concern for the well-being of others.

Empathy helps us see the world as others do, and in facing global warming this means seeing the world through the eyes of people living on low ground near the sea, or in the Arctic on frozen ground that is thawing. Global warming threatens land, livelihoods, and lives, and when we see this with empathy as well as reason, we will more likely be moved to act with greater commitment and compassion. 

Concern for relationships also means a more inclusive way of making decisions. Facing moral choices about global warming should include all of us in local, state, national, and international decision-making. We have a moral responsibility to consider the welfare of others, and to make the best decisions we can for all those who will be affected.

Finally, global warming threatens not only human life, but other species. We face a tremendous loss in biodiversity due to climate change, and thus have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions in order to preserve biodiversity.

Rights

Chapter 10 notes that the right to sustainable development has been part of international law since the 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”34 Agenda 21 and the Beijing Declaration help to clarify that this should be understood to mean economic and social development that is environmentally sustainable.

The right to health and a healthy working environment is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The right to a healthy environment was first asserted in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The 1992 Rio Declaration reaffirmed this right, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) states: “The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind. . . .”35

PREDICTING CONSEQUENCES

The virtually certain consequence of failing to decrease GHG emissions is more rapid global warming, and the very likely consequences include climate change that will involve flooding in some places and drought elsewhere. Some organisms will be sufficiently “fit” to survive in these rapidly changing environments, but many species will not. The bacteria causing tropical diseases are already on the move, due to the earth’s warming, so we can expect malaria in southern Europe and southern regions of the United States.36

Our ethical presumptions require actions by individuals, governments, and corporations to reduce GHG emissions, and to secure more carbon dioxide in forests and farmland. This requires ending industrial agriculture and deforestation, and substantially reducing our use of fossil fuels for transportation and generating electricity.37

Agriculture

A shift to sustainable agriculture would hold more carbon in plants and the soil.  Where a commodity crop (like corn) is grown as a monoculture, as is the case in industrial agriculture, the soil is left uncovered after the harvest until a new crop comes up in the spring. Sustainable agriculture, however, uses cover crops to protect and nourish the soil, which increases the plant and soil absorption of carbon dioxide. Ending industrial agriculture would also lower the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels to produce fertilizers and pesticides, run farm machinery, and transport food long distances. 

Terminating current government subsidies for commodity crops and reducing the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides would save billions of dollars.  Relying on sustainable farming, however, would likely mean increased costs for food producers and higher food prices for consumers. It is not possible to predict all the costs and benefits of a shift to sustainable farming, but the adverse consequences do not clearly outweigh the benefits.

Forests

What are the likely consequences of reducing deforestation and managing forests sustainably? Forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transform this carbon through photosynthesis into carbohydrates. Forests also release oxygen into the atmosphere, increase rainfall, cool the earth, hold the soil, prevent erosion, and provide habitats for animals. Therefore, assessing the consequences of sustainable forestry must include not only the likely short-term costs of logging fewer trees—a loss of jobs and income in some communities, an increase in the price of timber and products made of wood, and higher costs to manage forests—but also the long-term environmental benefits.38 Sustainable forestry also generates income from jobs and fees for the recreational use of forests. 

JPMorgan Chase limits its lending for logging to sustainable forestry management, and requires proof of decision-making that includes local communities.  Companies, such as Home Depot, verify that the lumber in their stores has been logged from forests managed in a way that is environmentally sustainable. We may presume, therefore, that the sustainable management of forests is cost effective.

Transportation

What are the likely consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels for transportation? First, reducing waste is always cost effective. A 2008 congressional report suggests that ending flight delays would save “US airlines more than $2 billion in wasted jet fuel” each year,39 and reducing traffic congestion in cities would also save costs and reduce carbon emissions. Cargo ships that reduce their average speed by just two knots “could save 5 per cent of fuel use and emissions,” which is significant as cargo ships account for up to 4.5 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide.”40 Improving fuel efficiency (with redesigned engines and lower vehicle weights) will require investment and increase the price of cars and trucks, but might add jobs.41

Motor vehicles emit a higher percentage of the greenhouse gases released each year than airplanes. US car companies have resisted tougher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but in 2007 Congress voted to raise fuel efficiency by at least 25 percent over the next fifteen years.42 As European countries and Japan require higher engine efficiency, clearly this change is economically feasible.

Second, as fossil fuels are being depleted, using alternative fuels for transportation is a long-term necessity. Scientists are experimenting with solar energy, electric vehicles, and hydrogen, but greater investment is needed to speed up research and development.

GM and Ford, whose vehicles cause over 50 percent of the carbon emissions from cars in the United States, are promoting the use of ethanol to reduce carbon emissions. Yet, most biofuels generate “more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these ‘green’ fuels are taken into account.”43 Fossil fuels are burned to irrigate, harvest, process, and transport crops, and producing biofuels by cutting forests or plowing grasslands “releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” and “also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions.”44

Using sugar cane, however, is “eight times more productive than corn. It grows year round. It must be processed fast, so CO2-spewing transport to distant ethanol plants is impossible (unlike for corn). Its leftover biomass can be used to produce electricity, enough, by some estimates, to provide a third of Brazil’s power needs by 2030. Ethanol already accounts for about 50 percent of car fuel in Brazil.”45 Yet, Brazil’s claim that it is not clearing forests to grow sugar cane is misleading, for cattle ranchers sell pastures to farmers (who will grow sugar care) and then move their herds “into the Amazon where land is cheap and deforesting is easy.”46

To preserve forests and farmland, there is now a push to make ethanol from “non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses,” but most of these species of “weeds” have a “high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc.”47 Sufficient investment, however, will likely create energy-efficient “biofuels made from waste products such as citrus peel, corncobs, and wood chips.”48

Third, despite the development of greater fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, the reduction in carbon emissions from transportation is not likely to be sufficient or rapid enough to stop global warming. Therefore, we must reduce our driving and flying. We should walk and cycle more, do business at a distance using computer technology to share information, utilize conference calls, and take vacations that burn less gasoline.

Airplane emissions are less than 5 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted each year, but airplane travel is growing at 5 percent annually and at this rate will triple the number of miles traveled by passengers by 2030.49 Motor vehicle emissions constitute more than 20 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions annually.50 Thus, transportation using fossil fuels for power is producing about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere annually.51

In the United States carbon emissions are growing overall at a rate close to 3 percent a year, and at this rate will double the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in twenty-three years.52 These consequences are uncertain, but we should not assume that the long-term cost of paying for the effects of global warming will be less than the cost of investing now to cut our carbon emissions.

Power Plants

What are the likely consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels to produce electrical energy? This is crucial, as power plants burning fossil fuels produce about a third of the global GHG emissions.53 The major source of the world’s power continues to be coal. The United States has about six hundred coal-burning power plants and more under construction.54 “Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every 7 to 10 days, another major coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China. To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants and has a population expected to outstrip China’s by 2030.”55

Europeans, too, are investing in coal-fired power plants. “Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are slated to build about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades.”56

The Union of Concerned Scientists has verified that a typical coal-burning power plant produces about 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide annually—equal to cutting down over 160 million trees.57 Given the rising demand for energy worldwide, more power plants will be built. To reduce carbon emissions, either these new power plants need to use fuels producing less carbon dioxide than coal, or, if these plants burn coal, the carbon dioxide produced must be sequestered in geological repositories.

The technology to sequester carbon dioxide does not yet exist, but German companies investing in this technology hope it will be feasible by 2020 at a cost of about 20 percent more than conventional facilities.58 Many NGOs, however, argue that investing in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) should not be used “as an excuse for building new coal-fired power plants. Governments should instead give priority to investing in sustainable energy solutions.”59

The ethical presumption in Agenda 21, which demands an equitable allocation of the costs of dealing with environmental damage, would support subsidies from developed countries to help developing countries incorporate the best available technology for reducing carbon emissions from power plants.  Without such assistance, China says, it can only afford to use older technology, and in its defense it points out that “the average American still consumes more energy and is responsible for the release of 10 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese.”60 The US government, however, rejects a per capita comparison of energy consumption by the two countries.

Natural gas is an alternative to coal for producing electricity. “At the power plant,” the EPA says, “the burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide [both greenhouse gases], but in lower quantities than burning coal or oil.”61 As natural gas is a nonrenewable resource, burning it to produce power does not fulfill our responsibility to future generations, which will not be able to rely on this source of fuel after we use it up. In the short term, however, generating electricity from natural gas rather than burning coal will reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.

Nuclear energy generates electricity without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. The British are reviving their nuclear plants, and France relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its electricity. In contrast, the United States obtains only 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and Germany has turned to alternative sources to meet its growing demand for energy.62 Congress included “incentives for new nuclear plants in the 2005 Energy Policy Act,” but public opinion in the United States is divided.63

The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes building more nuclear power plants. “It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-US—nuclear power system.”64

Expanding nuclear power would increase radioactive waste, which will remain a significant hazard for centuries. Also, the need to lower carbon emissions is urgent, and even beginning construction of new nuclear plants today would not make a substantial difference in lowering emissions “for at least two decades.”65

Renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels include wind, solar energy, and geo thermal energy. “The EU’s Renewables Directive has been in place since 2001. It aims to increase the share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES) in the EU to 21% by 2010, thus helping the European Union reach the RES target of overall energy consumption of 12% by 2010.” 66 In China, wind power “has experienced tremendous development since early 2005, when the government enacted its landmark national renewable energy law.”67 Moreover, “China is the third largest producer of solar photo-voltaic cells and is producing 75 percent of the world’s global solar hot water from rooftop solar collectors.”68

In the United States, between 1994 and 2004, wind energy capacity tripled, providing enough electrical power to serve more than 1.6 million households.69 In 2008 a Department of Energy report predicted that wind energy could “supply 20 percent of US electricity needs” in twenty years at a cost 2 percent greater “than sticking with the current energy mix, which relies more heavily on traditional fossil fuels.”70 The District of Columbia and twenty-one states have enacted renewable energy standards. “By 2020, state standards will reduce total annual carbon dioxide emissions by 108.1 million metric tons (MMT)—the equivalent of taking 17.7 million cars off the road or planting 25.9 million acres of trees—an area larger than the Commonwealth of Virginia.”71

Studies completed in 2008 suggest that “both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.”72 In the United States this means per capita carbon emissions need to be reduced by about “90 percent from what they are today.”73 The costs of not reaching this goal (or reaching it) are uncertain, but there is no reason to think that ignoring global warming will cost less than facing it.

Taxes

Cap-and-trade programs create financial incentives to lower carbon emissions and create a market in emission “credits,” but many argue that a tax on carbon consumption is needed.74 Representative John Dingell, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, has supported “some form of carbon emissions fee” in order “to curb carbon emissions and make alternatives economically viable.”75 Now that the price of gasoline is rising, consumers are already motivated to increase their energy efficiency in order to lower their costs. So, it only makes sense to add an environmental tax to gasoline, if income taxes are generally reduced, and the income from an added tax on gasoline is invested in developing alternative sources of energy.

In his 2007 appearance before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, Al Gore made such a proposal: “We should start using the tax code to reduce taxes on employment and production, and make up the difference with pollution taxes, principally [on] carbon dioxide.”76 Ray Anderson, the founder of Interface Incorporated, agrees, arguing that “the tax code is ‘perverse,’ in that it puts heavy taxes on good things, like income and capital, and leaves a lot of bad things, like energy use, relatively unscathed.”77

Economist Amory Lovins suggests that a “feebate”—a fee (tax) when buying a less fuel-efficient car and a rebate (tax credit) for a more efficient car—would be more effective than a gas tax.78 “Fuel taxes are a much weaker way to affect how efficient a car you buy because they are diluted, roughly seven to one, by the other costs of owning and running the car, and then they are heavily discounted.”79 Fuel taxes are also more regressive (have greater impact on the poor) than a feebate on cars would be.

Perhaps the best strategy is to “tax the industrial emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture technologies and other environmental innovations.”80 This tax and investment policy has “led to a large decrease in emissions in Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”81

Those who oppose any form of carbon tax argue that markets provide a more cost-effective way of shifting investment to alternative fuels as the price of fossil fuels increases. Yet, we should not rely on markets alone to limit an environmentally damaging activity, because “the absence of an appropriate price for certain scarce resources (such as clean air and water) leads to their excessive use and results in what is called ‘market failure.’”82

Economist Wallace E. Oates explains: “Many of our environmental resources are unprotected by the appropriate prices that would constrain their use. From this perspective, it is hardly surprising to find that the environment is overused and abused. A market system simply doesn’t allocate the use of these resources properly. In sum, economics makes a clear and powerful argument for public intervention to correct market failure with respect to many kinds of environmental resources. Markets may work well in guiding the production of private goods, but they cannot be relied upon to provide the proper levels of ‘social goods’ (like environmental services).”83

Markets have not included in the price of fossil fuels the cost of the environmental damage due to global warming, or the cost of developing alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions. Governments exacerbate this “market failure” by not supporting energy and environmental policies that will correct it, and by not informing consumers so they will understand the need for effective environmental policies.84

Burning coal today to produce electricity, without assessing a fee on these carbon emissions, illustrates this problem. Advocates for solar energy argue that: “If coal remains as cheap as it is today due to its relatively abundant supply, renewables such as photovoltaic cells will never gain enough market share to make the efficiency strides necessary to become competitive. If, however, the environmental externalities were factored into the cost of coal-powered electricity, photovoltaic cells would become competitive as an electricity source.”85

A major shortcoming in the 2007 energy bill passed by the US Congress “was its failure to extend vital tax credits to producers of wind, solar and other renewable fuels.”86 The 2008 energy bill included authorization for “a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind and a multiyear extension of the investment tax credit for solar power,”87 but was blocked in the US Senate on a procedural vote that failed to gain the necessary sixty votes (out of one hundred possible).88 The consequences of the bill were uncertain, yet opponents claimed that any long-term benefits were outweighed by their prediction of the likely short-term costs.

TAKING ACTION

Environmentalist Bill McKibben writes: “Everyone involved knows what the basic outlines of a deal that could avert catastrophe would look like: rapid, sustained, and dramatic cuts in emissions by the technologically advanced countries, coupled with large-scale technology transfers to China, India, and the rest of the developing world so that they can power up their emerging economies without burning up their coal.”89 But, how is this to be done?

Strategies

Scientists Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala offer fifteen strategies using existing technology. They predict that adopting any twelve of these strategies would cut carbon dioxide emissions in half in the next fifty years and prevent a global warming disaster.

Efficiency and Conservation

1.   Improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the road by 2057 to 60 mpg from 30 mpg.

2.   Reduce miles traveled annually per car from 10,000 to 5,000.

3.   Increase efficiency in heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances by 25 percent.

4.   Improve coal-fired power plant efficiency to 60 percent from 40 percent.

Carbon Capture and Storage

5.   Introduce systems to capture carbon dioxide and store it underground at 800 large coal-fired plants or 1,600 natural-gasfired plants.

6.   Use capture systems at coal-derived hydrogen plants producing fuel for a billion cars.

7.   Use capture systems in coal-derived synthetic fuel plants producing 30 million barrels a day.

Low-Carbon Fuels

8.   Replace 1,400 large coal-fired power plants with natural gas-fired plants.

9.   Displace coal by increasing production of nuclear power to three times today’s capacity.

Renewables and Biostorage

10. Increase wind-generated power to 25 times current capacity.

11. Increase solar power to 700 times current capacity.

12. Increase wind power to 50 times current capacity to make hydrogen for fuel-cell cars.

13. Increase biofuel production to 50 times current capacity. About one-sixth of the world’s cropland would be needed.90

14. Stop all deforestation.

15. Expand conservation tillage to all cropland (normal plowing releases carbon by speeding decomposition of organic matter).91

Doing Ethics

Al Gore is encouraging everyone to take the pledge recommended by the Alliance for Climate Protection. This pledge includes many of the ethical presumptions presented in this book, and so I have taken it and recommend it to readers.

1.   To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth.

2.   To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own carbon dioxide emissions as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral.”92

3.   To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the carbon dioxide.

4.   To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation.

5.   To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal.

6.   To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests.

7.   To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.93

Commentators, who limit their analysis to predicting consequences, are skeptical about such a pledge. Thomas Friedman, in a column describing the rapidly developing (and polluting) cities of Doha (in Qatar) and Dalian (in China) dismisses as useless many of the ethical presumptions affirmed in this book.

He quotes an EPA report: “Demand for oil has grown 22 percent in the United States since 1990. China’s oil demand has grown nearly 200 percent in this same period.”94 Moreover, by 2030, the EPA suggests, “the global thirst for oil is forecast to increase by another 40 percent if we maintain business as usual.” Friedman’s conclusion is that the “appetite” of developing nations, such as China and India, for fossil fuels “would devour every incremental green initiative” that we might make.95

Despite such skepticism, what you do about global warming does matter, even if all our efforts to reduce carbon emissions do not offset the emissions of Doha and Dalian. Before we act we cannot know all the consequences of acting, and we can never know for certain that by trying to resolve a problem we will succeed.  Yet, we know that doing what is right and being good persons are worthwhile.  Living an ethical life is right. Living more sustainably for the sake of nature and future generations is good. Protecting the rights of others is worth doing.

Acting on ethical presumptions always matters. Acting on your duty to reduce your ecological footprint matters to you and to those who look to you for moral leadership. Being grateful and frugal, and having integrity, is inspiring. Working with neighbors and strangers for sustainable forests, farms, and urban communities matters to them. Struggling to realize the social right to sustainable economic development, and the individual right to a healthy environment, matters to us all.

What you do matters to me, and surely it matters to you, too.

NOTES

1. See Deborah Zabarenko, “Human Warming Hobbles Ancient Climate Cycle,” Reuters (Apr. 27, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2541737720080427, and Kenneth R. Weis, “Scientists Blame Ocean Dead Zones on Climate Change,” San Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 20, 2008), A-6, online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/MNQNV50EU.DTL.

2. See Haider Rizvi, “Record Glacier Melt Spurs New Calls for Climate Action,” OneWorld.net (Mar. 18, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/158959/1. 

3. See Beth Borenstein, “Narwhals More at Risk to Arctic Warming than Polar Bears,” Live Science (Apr. 25, 2008), online at http://www.livescience.com/animals/080425-ap-narwhal.html.  See also Deborah Zaborenko, “Polar Bears Listed as ‘Threatened’ Species,” Reuters (May 14, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUSN1452119020080514, and David Pearlman, “Greenhouse Gases Called Threat to Pacific Life,” San Francisco Chronicle (Jul. 4, 2008), B-1, online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/03/BA9011IG0Q.DTL. 

4. See Keith Bradsher, “A Drought in Australia, A Global Shortage of Rice,” The New York Times (Apr. 17, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html.

5. See Andrew C. Rivkin, “Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell,” The New York Times (Mar. 2, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html, and Nicholas D. Kristof, “Our Favorite Planet,” The New York Times (Apr. 20, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20kristof.html. 

6. “Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” IPCC, online at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html.

7. “State of Knowledge,” Climate Change—Science, US Environmental Protection Agency, online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. 

8. “Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” IPCC, online at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html.

9. “State of Knowledge,” Climate Change—Science, US Environmental Protection Agency, online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. 

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Bill McKibben, “Carbon’s New Math,” National Geographic, vol. 212, no. 4 (Oct. 2007): 33. 

13. “What Is the Carbon Cycle?” Soil Carbon FAQ, online at http://faqsoilcarbon.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-carbon-cycle.html.

14. Ibid.

15. “Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?” National Geographic News (Nov. 10, 2005), online at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html.

16. Sara van Gelder, “Environmental Ethics,” Charles J. Kibert, ed., Reshaping the Built Environment, 64.

17. Peter Singer, One World, 32.

18. “Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,” online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html.

19. “Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts,” The White House, online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html. 

20. Ibid.

21. “Byrd-Hagel Resolution,” 105 Congress, 1st Session, Senate Resolution 98, online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger argue that the carbon emission reductions by signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are not going to be met and that the protocol “epitomizes the environmentalist obsession with limits.” Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 114, 120.

22. Charlie E. Coon, “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol,” The Heritage Foundation (May 11, 2001), online at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm.

23. Most Americans do not realize that the Kyoto Protocol is being implemented in many parts of the world. See “UN Approves Thousandth Kyoto Clean Energy Project,” Reuters (Apr. 14, 2008), online at http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL1426496820080414. 

24. “Cap-and-Trade Systems,” Catalyst 4:1 (Spring 2005), Union of Concerned Scientists, online at http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/page.jsp?itemID=27226959. In a cap-and-trade program “an aggregate cap on all sources is established and these sources are then allowed to trade amongst themselves to determine which sources actually emit the total pollution load. An alternative approach with important differences is a baseline and credit program. In a baseline and credit program a set of polluters that are not under an aggregate cap can create credits by reducing their emissions below a baseline level of emissions. These credits can be purchased by polluters that are under a regulatory limit. Many of the criticisms of trading in general are targeted at baseline & credit programs rather than cap type programs.” “Emissions Trading,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade.

25. The UN supports carbon emissions trading, but indigenous groups are very critical. See Haider Rizvi, “Carbon Trading Blasted by Indigenous Groups,” OneWorld.net (May 7, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160386/1.

26. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger argue that a carbon emissions cap-and-trade program “could, if done right, generate billions of dollars in private investment for cleaner sources of energy.” Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 120. “Although some may think that emissions trading allows the United States to avoid its burdens too easily, the point is not to punish nations with high emissions, but to produce the best outcome for the atmosphere.  Permitting emissions trading gives us a better hope of doing this than prohibiting emissions trading does.” Peter Singer, One World, 46.

27. “Western Climate Initiative,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Regional_Climate_Action_Initiative.

28. “Jumping ahead of state and federal regulators, a Bay Area air quality district today became the first in the nation to impose fees on businesses which pump some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide into the air each year.” Kelly Zito, “Air Quality Agency Approves First-in-the-Nation Fees for Emissions,” San Francisco Chronicle (May 21, 2008), online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/BADN10QD60.DTL.

29. “Environmental Groups Slam German Climate Plans,” online at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070821/sc_afp/germanywarmingpolitics. For critical arguments about trading carbon emissions, see “Emissions Trading,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_trading.

30. David Jackson, “Greenpeace, Others Pan G-8 Warming Deal,” USA Today (Jun. 7, 2007), online at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2007–06–07-bush-g8-warming_N.htm.

31. Two new studies conclude that “both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.” Juliet Eilperin, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say,” The Washington Post (Mar. 10, 2008), A01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html. 

32. To assess your ecological footprint, see “Ecological Footprint Quiz,” online at http:/www.earthday.net/footprint/info.asp. To consider using carbon offsets to reduce your ecological footprint, see “Why Carbon Offsets?” online at http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/why_offset/, and also “Voluntary Carbon Offsets,” Voluntary Carbon Offset Information Portal, Stockholm Environmental Institute, Tufts Climate Initiative, online at http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/.

33. Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler, Bringing Up a Moral Child, 8.

34. Our Common Future, online at http://ringofpeace.org/environment/brundtland.html. 

35. The FCCC, online at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php.

36. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “As Earth Warms, Virus from Tropics Moves to Italy,” The New York Times (Dec. 23, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html. “After a month of investigation, Italian public health officials discovered that the people of Castiglione di Cervia were, in fact, suffering from a tropical disease, chikungunya, a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region. But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe. Aided by global warming and globalization, Castiglione di Cervia has the dubious distinction of playing host to the first outbreak in modern Europe of a disease that had previously been seen only in the tropics.”

37. See Steven Mufson, “Is This Green Enough? We Can Clean Up Our Act but It’ll Cost Us,” The Washington Post (Apr. 20, 2008), B01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802664.html.

38. “Once the forest is mature and an old tree dies and rots for every new tree that grows, the forest no longer soaks up significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.” Peter Singer, One World, 33.

39. John Crawley, “Wasted Fuel from US Flight Delays Cost Billions,” Reuters (May 22, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2250451020080522. 

40. Juliette Jowit, “Cargo Ships Told to Go Green by Slowing Down,” The Observer (Jun. 15, 2008), http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/15/travelandtransport.carbonemissions. 

41. “The FCX Clarity, which runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water and none of the noxious fumes believed to induce global warming. It is also two times more energy efficient than a gas-electric hybrid and three times that of a standard gasoline-powered car,” the company says. “A breakthrough in the design of the fuel cell stack, which powers the car’s motor, allowed engineers to lighten the body.” “Honda rolls out its new zero-emission car,” San Francisco Chronicle (Jun. 17, 2008), online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/BUTE11A08H.DTL.

42. Nicole Olsen, “Automakers Back Higher Fuel-Economy Standards,” OneWorld.net (Jul 31, 2007), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/151819/1.  43. “It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important . . . taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.” The only possible exception seems to be “sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel.” Governments should focus on developing biofuels using agricultural waste products, rather than crops. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat,” The New York Times (Feb. 8, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html.

44. Ibid. See also Sabrina Valle, “Losing Forests to Fuel Cars,” The Washington Post (July 31, 2007), D01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001484.html. Nonetheless, the European Union remains committed to the use of biofuels. “EU Defends Biofuel Goals Amid Food Crises,” AFP (Apr. 14, 2008), online at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gp1nkJeC-IhlYkVtsvPfp3u7mOWQ. 

45. Roger Cohen, “Energy Lessons,” The New York Times (Jun. 5, 2008), online at http:// www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/opinion/05cohen.html.

46. Andrew Downie, “Brazil Defends Ethanol in Food-Versus-Fuel Fight,” (May 5, 2008), The Christian Science Monitor, online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p04s01-woam.html.

47. Elizabeth Rosenthal, “New Trend in Biofuels Has High Risks,” The New York Times (May 21, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/science/earth/21biofuels.html. 

48. Andrew Downie, “Brazil Defends Ethanol in Food-Versus-Fuel Fight,” (May 5, 2008), The Christian Science Monitor, online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p04s01-woam.html.

49. Mark Rice-Oxley, “Air Travel Latest Target in Climate Change Fight,” The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 17, 2007), online at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p01s01-woeu.html. A recent, unpublished report reveals that the carbon emissions from airplanes are higher than previously reported. “Growth of CO2 emissions on this scale will comfortably outstrip any gains made by improved technology and ensure aviation is an even larger contributor to global warming by 2025 than previously thought. Governments must take action to put a cap on air transport’s unrestrained growth.” Cahal Milno, “Airline Emissions ‘Far Higher than Previous Estimates,’” The Independent (May 6, 2008), online at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/airline-emissions-far-higher-than-previous-estimates-821598.html. 

50. Nick Hopwood and Jordan Cohen, “Greenhouse Gases and Society,” online at whttp://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm.

51. Higher prices for petroleum will reduce travel by airplane and motor vehicles, and will also increase incentives for airplane and motor vehicle manufacturers to improve energy efficiency.  52. “If something is growing at a steady rate, and you want to know how long before it will double, divide the growth rate into sixty-nine.” James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 137. 

53. Nick Hopwood and Jordan Cohen, “Greenhouse Gases and Society,” online at whttp://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm.

54. “Claims about a 250-year supply of coal won’t stand up to scrutiny for long, either. Yes, the United States has more coal than any other nation. But we’ve been mining coal in this country for 150 years—all the simple, high-quality, easy-to-get stuff is gone. What’s left is buried beneath towns and national parks, or places that are difficult, expensive and dangerous to mine.” Mining “hard-to-get coal will also devastate Appalachia, where huge mountaintop-removal mines have already buried 700 miles of streams and 400,000 acres of forests.” Jeff Goodell, “What It Costs Us,” The Washington Post (Aug. 26, 2007), B01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401206.html.

55. Keith Bradsher and Kenneth Barboza, “China’s Burning of Coal Casts a Global Cloud,” The New York Times (Jun. 11, 2006), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html. “Between 2007 and 2020, China will invest 128 billion in coal.” Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 117. 

56. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Despite Climate Worry, Europe Turns to Coal,” The New York Times (Apr. 23, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html. 

57. “Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution,” Union of Concerned Scientists, online at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html. 

58. David Archer, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 178. “German utility RWE, Europe’s largest polluter, said on Friday it plans to develop a new process to remove carbon-dioxide from the emissions of coal-fired power plants as countries throughout Europe make it more expensive to emit the greenhouse gas. Germany’s largest power producer will spend 80 million euros ($113.5 million) on the process, which it is devising with Industrial-gases producer Linde and chemicals firm BASF, and plans to use it commercially by 2020.” The three German companies said “they were aiming to remove 90 percent of CO2 from their pilot plant’s combustion gas, and ultimately bury it underground.” “RWE to Develop New Process to Cut Pollution,” Reuters (Sep. 28, 2007), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2880603120070928.

59. “New Greenpeace Report Labels ‘Carbon Capture and Storage” a ‘Scam,’” online at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-greenpeace-report-labels. Scientists are also concerned about the consequences of affecting microbes underground. “It’s a very risky prospect just putting gases into geological formations and not considering there could be a feedback response because of the organisms down there.” Alister Doyle, “Microbes Found Living at Record 1.6km Below Seabed,” Reuters (May 22, 2008), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2273980520080522.

60. Ibid. “But China is also quietly emerging as a global force in renewable energy technologies, from big-ticket items such as wind and solar power to small products. . . . This is being driven by strong government policies, its own vast market and businesses seizing opportunities in a fast-growing global industry.” “China Offers Surprise Hope in Climate Change Fight,” (Oct. 2, 2007), online at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZz8YWsNjJOUeh8Y20vuuTXG7zgQ.  See also Emma Graham-Harrison, “China Could Be Top Wind Market in Three Years: Vestas,” Reuters (Sep. 21, 2007), online at http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSPEK21257420070921.

61. “Clean Energy: Electricity from Natural Gas,” EPA, online at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/natgas.htm.

62. Roger Cohen, “American Needs France’s Atomic Annie,” The New York Times (Jan. 24, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24cohen.html. 

63. Ibid.

64. “Global Warming: UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming,” Union of Concerned Scientists, online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-andclimate.html

65. Ibid. See John Vidal, “Nuclear Expansion is a Pipe Dream, Says Report,” The Guardian (Jul. 4, 2007), online at http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2117711,00.html. 

66. “Europe,” Global Wind Energy Council, online at http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=11. 

67. Junfeng Li, “China’s Wind Power Development Exceeds Expectations,” Worldwatch Institute (Jun. 2, 2008), online at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5758. 

68. Jazmine Rodriguez, “‘Tipping Point’ for Renewable Energy,” OneWorld.net (Jun. 19, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160914/1. 

69. In 2007 “onshore wind power added more than 5,200 megawatts of new electrical capacity to the grid—or nearly a third of America’s new generating capacity, surpassing all other forms of new generation except natural gas and amounting to enough electric capacity to power one and a half million homes. While it’s true that wind is still a tiny part of the energy picture—just 1 percent of the total electricity portfolio in the United States and 3.3 percent in Europe—more than a quarter of the 20,000 megawatts of the world’s new wind capacity last year was installed in North America, where all the global wind-energy players have set up shop, lured by the low US dollar and the high rate of returns.” Mark Svenvold, “Wind-Power Politics,” The New York Times (Sep.  12, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/magazine/14wind-t.html. 

70. Ben Block, “Study Supports US Wind Expansion,” Worldwatch Institute (May 19, 2008), online at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5748. “The United States is the only developed nation without set energy targets.” Jazmine Rodriguez, “‘Tipping Point’ for Renewable Energy,” OneWorld.net (Jun. 19, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160914/1. 

71. “Clean Energy: Renewable Energy–Mitigating Global Warming,” Union of Concerned Scientists, online at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/RES-climatestrategy.tml These changes will require updating the US energy transmission system. See Matthew L. Wald, “Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits,” The New York Times (Aug.  26, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html. 

72. Juliet Eilperin, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say,” The Washington Post (Mar. 10, 2008), A01, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html

73. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 115. 

74. Gregg Easterbrook, “Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution,” The New York Times (Mar. 9, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09easterbrook.html. See also Jim Robbins, “Sale of Carbon Credits Helping Land Rich, but Cash Poor Tribes,” The New York Times (May 8, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/earth/08carb.html. 

75. John B. Dingell, “The Power in the Carbon Tax,” The Washington Post (Aug. 2, 2007), online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102051.html

76. See also “Market Forces Essential to Halting Global Warming: Gore,” (Dec. 9, 2007), online at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTgqt91jaTdJt5–5dSWGwnEXY41A.

77. Cornelia Dean, “Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet,” The New York Times (May 22, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html. See chapter 10 to learn what Interface is doing to be a “restorative enterprise,” that is, “a sustainable operation that takes nothing out of the earth that cannot be recycled or quickly regenerated, and that does no harm to the biosphere.”

78. Alternatively, or in addition, vehicle registration fees imposed by a state could be higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles. “Californians support the idea of charging ‘green’ vehicle fees that would make drivers of gas guzzlers pay higher taxes and offer discounts for those driving lesspolluting vehicles, according to a survey by a transportation researcher at San Jose State University.” Michael Cabanatuan, “Poll: Make Gas Guzzlers Pay Higher Fees,” San Francisco Chronicle (Apr. 3, 2008), A-1, online at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/03/MNIMVUPFF.DTL

79. Farid Zakaria, “A Cure for Oil Addicts,” Newsweek (Aug. 6, 2007): 34. 

80. Monica Prasad, “On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” The New York Times (Mar. 25, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25prasad.html. Denmark was successful because it overcame the temptation to maximize tax revenues, and invested these revenues in renewable energy development that was also good for the economy.

81. Ibid. See Thomas Friedman, “Flush with Energy,” The New York Times (Aug. 9, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html. 

82. James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 133. Economist Arthur C. Pigou addressed the problem of “unpriced goods” early in the twentieth century.

83. Wallace E. Oates, “An Economic Perspective on Environmental and Resources Management,” in Wallace E. Oates, ed., The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resources Management (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1999), xiv, quoted in James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 134. Economist Theo Panayotou writes: “A combination of institutional, market and policy failures results in underpricing of scarce natural resources and environmental assets, which is then translated into underpricing of resource-based and environmental-intensive goods and services. . . . As a direct result producers and consumers of products and services do not receive correct signals about the true scarcity of resources they use up or the cost of environmental damage they cause. This leads to the socially wrong mix of economic output: overproduction and over-consumption of commodities that are resource-depleting and environment-polluting, and underproduction and underconsumption of commodities that are resource-saving and environment-friendly. Thus, the emerging pattern of economic growth and structure of the  economy is one that undermines its own resource base, and is ultimately unsustainable, since relative scarcities are not respected.” Theodore Panayotou, Instruments of Change: Motivating and Financing Sustainable Development (London: Earthscan, 1998), 6, quoted in James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning, 135.

84. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, has called for a tax on carbon emissions, as opposed to relying on a cap-and-trade program to lower emissions. Sewell Chan, ““Bloomberg Calls for Tax on Carbon Emissions,” The New York Times (Nov. 2, 2007), online at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/bloomberg-calls-for-tax-on-carbon-emissions/index.html. 

85. Rachel Waldemer, “A proposal to generate 50% of the United States’ electricity needs from solar power by the year 2100,” (Jul. 24, 2003), online at http://www.ese.ogi.edu/~waldemer/solarpaper.htm. Waldemer has proposed that “an ‘externality tax’ of 7.6 cents/kWh (phased in over 20 years) be added to the price of coal-powered electricity. Such a tax would generate almost 5 trillion dollars in 20 years.” These funds could be used to purchase and install photovoltaic cells in all federal buildings, which would stimulate solar manufacturers to invest in greater production.  Funds raised by the tax could also be spent to further research and development into solar technology. Waldemer estimates that implementing this plan would prevent about 200 billion tons of carbon from CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and that the United States “could be generating 50 percent of its electricity with photovoltaic cells by the year 2020.”

86. “This was entirely the doing of the Senate, which caved in to the oil companies and their White House friends.” Editorial, “The Senate Shills for Big Oil,” The New York Times (Mar. 3, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03mon4.html. 

87. Editorial, “Big Oil’s Friends in the Senate,” The New York Times (May 5, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/opinion/05mon2.html. In California, however, utility companies must “generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal power by 2010.” See Ilana DeBare, “PG&E Plans Big Investment in Solar Power,” San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 15, 2008), D-1, online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/BUP412B774.DTL.

88. “The Senate bill, if passed, would have required that total US emissions of greenhouse gases be cut to 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and up to 71 percent by the year 2050 primarily through a ‘cap-and-trade’ system that would give companies financial incentives to reduce their emissions. The United States currently accounts for about 25 percent of the world’s total greenhouse emissions. The legislation also proposed the creation of a 40-year, $800-billion ‘tax relief fund’ to encourage energy consumers to switch to cleaner technologies.” Jim Lobe, “As Climate Bill Dies, Greens Express Hope,” OneWorld.net (Jun. 9, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160824/1/45.

89. Bill McKibben, “Carbon’s New Math,” National Geographic, vol. 212, no. 4 (Oct. 2007): 34. 

90. Using this much cropland for fuel would substantially reduce the production of food and raise food prices, unless affluent societies at the same time substantially reduced their consumption of beef, which would allow land now used to grow corn for cattle feed to be planted with crops for human consumption.

91. This means ending industrial agriculture as we know it today. 

92. The ClimateSmart program of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California enables customers to reduce their impact on climate change. PG&E calculates the amount needed to make the GHG emissions associated with a customer’s home energy use “neutral,” adds this amount to the customer’s monthly energy bill, and then invests these funds in new GHG emission reduction projects. “ClimateSmart–How It Works,” PG&E, online at http://www.pge.com/myhome/environment/whatyoucando/climatesmart/climatesmarthowitworks/index.shtml. 

93. “Take the Pledge,” The Alliance for Climate Protection, online at http://www.climateprotect.org/pledge.

94. Thomas Friedman, “Doha and Dalian,” The New York Times (Sep. 19, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/opinion/19friedman.html. 

95. Ibid. See Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley, “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes,” The New York Times (Aug. 26, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html,and Joseph Kahn and Mark Landler, “China Grabs West’s Smoke-Spewing Factories,” The New York Times (Dec. 21, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.html.