Environment/Energy · International affairs

What ought to be the next steps on climate change?

Eric Ringham December 21, 2009, 6:00 AM Dec 21, 2009

The climate change conference that concluded last week in Copenhagen showed how hard it is to get the world community to agree on a course of action. What ought to be the next steps on climate change?

About the blogger

Eric Ringham

eringham@mpr.org

Steve the Cynic

Sit back. Watch the disaster happen. Say to the deniers, “Told ya!” Then figure out how to explain to your grandchildren why you didn’t do more to stop it.

Kari

Place a monetary value on damage done to the environment.

Chad

The word “ought” denotes moral obligation. So the question is– morally, what are the next steps? I believe that, in order to be effective, the answer to climate change cannot NOT address social justice issues. How would Jesus handle climate change?

Stan

We need to demonstrate in the U.S. that we are committed to and capable of reducing our CO2 emissions. That means passing some sort of cap and trade legislation and raising the gasoline tax. If we can accomplish this we’ll have a lot more credibility heading into the next global climate change conference.

Andrew

Looking at what we all can do in the here and now

Gary F

Saving energy is always a good thing, but the whole idea of paying “Economic indulgences” is a big crock of dung.

Stop making this a religion. What we found out in Copenhagen this is just another Marxist transfer of wealth.

Just how many crazy nutjob 3rd world dictators and corrupt governments will get this money.

NOT FOR ME! Quit stopping prosperity! Quit ruining job creation!

Scott Travis

The US will go bankrupt trying to prove that we don’t need more nuclear power. The world can’t wait. The problems that you think you know about nuclear power do not apply to the 3rd and 4th generation reactor designs. Learn all about these at: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com. Climatologist Jim Hansen calls for the immediate construction of another demonstration integral fast reactor (IFR) to prove its worth. The US Dept of Energy had a first demo IFR through the late 70’s and 80’s until the program was cancelled in ’94 and all of the DOE staff were banned from publishing anything about it.
alex

for electricity, create a national renewable energy standard (similar to minnesota) that requires a certain (gradually increasing) percentage of renewable power in each state.

for transportation, create a plug-in hybrid vehicle standard that requires a certain (gradually increasing) number of miles that the car must be able to run on electric charge.
bsimon

two steps:

1) carbon tax

2) go to the WTO & allow us to enforce our environmental/labor laws on imports: i.e. if imports are cheaper because of lax labor/environmental laws outside the US, allow the US to tax/tarriff those goods to level the playing field with domestic producers.
James

2nd on the nuclear power option.

More R&D on super capacitors (much better than Lithium-ion battery) This will make for a ZERO Carbon footprint.

This would create some huge job creation in engineering and construction. However, the USA graduates more lawyers than engineers. I like Gene Roddenberry’s view of the future… NO lawyers and unlimited resources to exploration.
raoul

We ought to figure out the best, most efficient means to reduce carbon production, figure out what trees and crops and ground covers bind the highest level of carbon per time period and use them, not to the exclusion of other species, just increse use of them. We should worry about making our country the model of how to reduce the carbon footprint without stifling the economy. If we can do it here and quickly and employ people in doing it then others can follow. We SHOULD do it here and stop paying other countries to do it. We have to start reducing out debt and deficit problems AND starting on the long road to repair the climate balances. If we can do this, others will follow and provide their own means of doing so. By the way the world community needs to wake up, if they have trouble with North Korea and Iran over nuclear issues, just what are they going to do when countries refuse to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint? Leadership needs to set tough goals, articulate them and let the US citizens get into the harness and start pulling the cart with the best ideas all pulling in the same direction.
Mike

A large percentage of people do not believe in global warming. Yes, people are against pollution, but are not necessarily believers in the cause of the warming and if it is a problem of castostrophic magnitude.

Doubt makes sense to me. It is more of a statement of lack of trust in the experts. People have been burned too many times and especially recently (eg., financial experts on home purchasing products) and there is no evidence that leaders want to work together (eg. Rep vs Dem on healthcare reform). More work needs to be done on informing the public. Al Gore did not help this cause because of his political persuasion and therefore lack of trust by some.

The State should fund public town hall meetings and listen to people first then follow-up with more educational town hall meetings.
Chuck Waibel

What’s next? Build “arks.” That’s what Thomas Friedman hinted at in “Hot, Flat and Crowded” when he wrote “We’re in a Noah Age.”

The people at the helms of the ships of state have waited too long. Many scientists believe that we are at or near the “tipping point.” Massive climate change is coming. It has begun. We must adapt or die. I hate being a pessimist, but our avarice has outrun our philosophies and politics. Decentralize. Simplify. Build local redundancies.
GregS

Okay…..

How come we are not doing the simple stuff first?

We could cut gasoline consumption by 10% by New Year’s Morning, if Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, O’Connell publically supported a telecommuting goal of 10% for American workers.

1) It would cost nothing.

2) It would not require taxes to be raised or lowered.

3) The savings in imported oil would create a positive economic benefit.

4) Traffic would immediately improve because of the decreased traffic, resulting in an additional fuel savings.

A telecommuting goal of 10% is achievable.

Yes, I know, I know…there is always the “not everyone can telecommute argument”. That is right. That’s true. That is why the goal is 10%. It is made for the people who can telecommute.

Why haven’t we heard a word about this?

Especially from the candidates who championed “CHANGE”?

Obama should have started this initiative the day after he was sworn in.
WH

Perhaps the US government should reinstitute war bonds. This time it would be a war on climate change and pollution. The bonds would be sold in small denominations directly to the people through the banks (they owe us) and post offices. The money could be used for domestic and foreign grants for alternative energy projects.
Jim Hopf

We need to put a significant price on CO2 emissions, through policies like cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax. Money collected from the tax or the sale of emissions credits should be returned to the people in the form of a tax credit or other fixed (per person) payment.

Everyone understands that simply putting a price on CO2 emissions, and letting the market decide how to respond, will deliver maximum emissions reductions at minimum cost. Everyone pays lip service to this concept.

However, in practice, the policies coming out of governments are very far from this ideal. Instead, these policies massively intervene in the non-emitting energy market by placing massive subsidies on certain favored energy sources, or outright mandates for their use, regardless of cost or practicality. Renewable portfolio standards (that require certain levels of renewables use) or feed-in tarrifs (that require utilities to pay for renewable sources literally no matter how much they cost) are horrible public policy, and they will greatly increase the cost of reducing emissions.