Global Warming: Contending in Vain

Let me preface this by stating that I believe the role of the national government to be protection of the people, pertaining to all assaults on our basic human rights. I consider peace, equality, clean air, drinkable water, health care and the opportunity to work to support one's own family basic human rights. Today, I'll begin with global warming as it is the most pressing issue considering its irreversibility.

“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.” -Friedrich Schiller

We were forewarned of our hardships by this Asimovian adage in the 70's. But who would have thought science fiction would ring true in such the near future? The sentiment of the proverbial novel was not so much to lead us to solve the energy crisis while we still had a chance, but to make us aware that any attempt is futile against the bull-headed stupidity of politics.

I am not prepared to accept defeat just yet. While there has been irreversible damage done, we are not yet on a downward slide into mass climate change. The next president has the opportunity to launch a defense against carbon emission such that we may be able to salvage what is left of our way of life.

In the US, global warming is an assault on our rights in two ways: national security instability and resource depletion. As the earth's climate changes, resources such as fertile soil and water supplies move and disappear and weather patterns become more erratic. With the possible exception of Hurricane Katrina, we have not yet felt severe effects of these changes in the US. In other parts of the world, climate 'moving' is already taking its toll. The genocide in Darfur is a prime example of violence arising from added stress on the region from the expansion of the desert. Such conflicts are expected to continue to arise as resources continue to be depleted across the globe. With such unrest ensuing, combating climate change becomes a issue of national security for we do not live in isolation.

The other issue, though we seem to be in denial of it, is the depletion of our own resources. The southwestern US is already beginning to experience water shortages as the glacial build-up months shorten. As the glaciers shrink over the years, the spring run-off which quenches the surrounding land diminishes. We have the ability to transport water, but this transport requires carbon, only accelerating the problem. As carbon supplies run dry and carbon emission becomes a more eminent threat, these sort of resource shortages will turn to crisis.

My Disappointment:

In one word, my reaction to Obama and Clinton's energy policies is “how?” Obama and Clinton's websites have a lot of subheadings with subsequent short paragraphs which do not say much more than the heading. While both candidates accurately state the problem on their websites and in their speeches, they do not connote the sense of urgency appropriate for the issue. Their plans reflect this lack of urgency.

Their plans focus on reduction, renewable fuels and research investments. The most concrete portion of either of their plans is cap and trade. The concept of paying to pollute is a little morally grey to me, but like many grey areas of politics, it may be the most realistic way to pay for other changes. So, I'll suck up my sense of queasiness about the notion that the wealthier you are, the more right you have to irreversibly change the environment, and say that this is a realistic plan that will actually make some big changes. I'd like to see the time set-point more immediate than “by 2050”, but at least there are real numbers and a real plan.

Renewable fuels seem like an all-around crap shoot to me. I'm growing tired of seeing the words “ethanol” and “green” in the same sentence. Ethanol is still a carbon source. It still emits carbon dioxide to burn and it is not necessarily more efficient to burn than gasoline just because it comes from plants. The energy we obtain from burning fuels is directly proportional to the number of carbon-carbon bonds we break in the oxidation process. Each time a carbon is freed by oxidation, it becomes a carbon dioxide molecule. So, burning ethanol is identical to burning gasoline from a carbon-emission perspective Ethanol may help relieve dependence on foreign oil, but it is not green.

The majority of both Clinton's and Obama's plans center around research investment. While I too want more money invested in greening research, the way the candidates present research is deceiving to the general public. Research is not a “fix all.” We know a lot and most new developments, at least those which will occur in the near future, we know are feasibly possible, we just do not yet know how to make them work for us. It is possible something great will be discovered and we'll be able to drastically increase our efficiency but this is quite unlikely.

The time frame of investing in research producing results which will impact our energy policy is also quite long. The candidates websites portray a Manhattan-Project-esque series of events in which government investment in research leads rapidly to the best minds coming together to quickly solve a major problem in a matter of years. However, they are not presenting plans for the creation of government labs devoted to green research with full creative control. What occurs when money is devoted to research is that scientists which hope to do such research (mind you, money does not immediately create more of these scientists) start with preliminary studies. Once something looks promising, they write to the government for a grant. If approved, they receive the money. Now, they can hire more graduate students, techs and post-docs to do said research. This process of starting new research or even dispersing monies among scientists already doing green research can take years. Once the money is dispersed, there is no guarantee that any applicable results will be produced.

But let's say somebody does develop something. There is still the additional time lag of engineering the new development into something cost-effective and practical for production. Once this occurs, people still have to be willing to use it. No matter how much research is done, it cannot be implemented for change without a significant shift in politics. For these gods of ingenuity contend in vain against those who will not utilize their fruit.

Now the thing is, we already have many technologies which could greatly increase efficiency which are not being implemented effectively. So please Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, can we focus on what we already have? (An aside, I do applaud Clinton for her mention of power-saver light bulbs).

Our technologies are nowhere near the ability to efficiently sequester carbon, so we need to focus on conservation. We have an abundance of means to effectively reduce emissions. So here is my plan for carbon reduction focusing on realistic, and immediate, changes.

The government needs to subsidize, and even require, implementation of power-saver light bulbs, solar hot water heaters and roofing projects, including green roofing and better roofing and window materials. There need to be better emission standards. To start this, SUVs should have to meet the same emissions standards as cars if people are choosing to drive them as recreational and everyday vehicles. I would go so far as to implement individual carbon quotas. While businesses can be regulated with cap and trade, individuals absolutely should not be given the ability to pollute based on their class. Although related to cap and trade, I would also support an added tax on gasoline to fund alternative energy research. People can prioritize how they choose to spend their pollution capital, but no person has the right to pollute more than anybody else. I consider excess pollution an assault on my physical well-being and on our national security.

On a societal scale, I see carbon emission reduction occurring through green energy production, such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Obama pledges 25% of all US energy production to be produced through these means, but realistically the figure could be higher if we drastically reduce our usage as we need to.

The catch of gas taxes and carbon quotas is that transportation is necessary to maintain our economy. So as it is now necessary to invest in alternative energy, it is just as important to invest in alternative transportation. It used to make sense to keep mass transit privatized, but in the wake of such a looming threat as global warming, it is time to convert to a public system. Train lines are incredibly efficient compared to planes, cars and even buses. Philadelphia is a prime example of poor utilization of rail lines. We have few rails and the ones we do are expensive. The argument that the trains would not be as reliable if they were government run is hard to believe considering the shabby state of SEPTA.

Precedented with Eisenhower's building of the interstate system, the government needs to build interstate rail lines which are efficient and affordable. It should always be cheaper to ride a train than drive or fly and one should be able to to travel between any major city and its suburbs by rail. Europe and Japan have shown that this is possible, so there are no excuses.

We are in a state of emergency and it should be treated as such. We have the means to drastically reduce emissions by 2020 well below the currently pledged amount by 2050. Let's do it.


Dear Mr. Obama,
Be smart.
Much love,
Molly