Climate Politics

The ideological tensions inside the IPCC gives its reports alarming credibility

Over on DotEarth, Andy Revkin has an interesting post about the "burning embers" diagram from the latest IPCC. The upshot of the story is that several countries well-known for their desire to do nothing about climate change were able to remove an alarming figure from the 2007 report:

The diagram, known as "burning embers," is an updated version of one that was a central feature of the panel's preceding climate report in 2001. The main opposition to including the diagram in 2007, they say, came from officials representing the United States, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

People who argue that the IPCC is an "alarmist" body forget that virtually all of the world's governments belong to it. Thus, governments that don't want to do anything about climate change have just as much input to the report as countries that do.

This tension between the ideological factions of the IPCC actually gives the reports credibility. Only statements that everyone agrees to make it into the report. A few countries that object to some result can keep it out of the report. This is, in fact, why the IPCC process was designed this way.

This is why some people argue that the actual science of climate change is more alarming than that revealed in the IPCC reports. In any event, if you read the IPCC reports and find it alarming, then you can have great confidence that your alarm is warranted.

Kids go crazy for the great taste of climate policy!

I’ve been over at the big Power Shift conference in Washington, D.C. this weekend, where thousands of young adults are here to ignite change on climate change policy. They’ve been holding panels on climate issues, workshops on activism, and training sessions for lobbying Congress. These college and high school students have filled the entirety of […]

Carbon policy = tax cut

A final note about cap-and-trade auction revenue in Obama's budget.

I know some folks (see Sean) object to the whole notion that climate policy should be viewed as a means of raising (and spending) revenue. And there are good policy reasons to fear the conflation.

Still, political reality being what it is, I can't help but think this is a stroke of genius. What you've got now is a tax cut for 95% of American workers, paid for by wealthy industries and individuals. It's flipped the "war on the poor" attack on cap-and-trade completely. Now blocking carbon legislation is a war on the poor.

"Mr. Inhofe, why do you oppose a tax cut that will help so many hard-hit Oklahoma families? Whose interests are you defending?"

Heh.

Biden’s Middle Class Task Forces asks some tough questions about green jobs

At the first meeting of the Middle Class Task Force on Friday, Vice President Joe Biden celebrated the progress on a new, green economy kicked off by the stimulus package, and called for continued efforts to create more jobs that “keep up with 21st century needs and lower energy costs.” But his cabinet members also […]

Takin' it to the streets … of NPR

I was on NPR's "News & Notes" program last week, talking about Obama's green stimulus. Listen if you dare.

U.S. denounces Iceland whaling move

WASHINGTON — The United States on Friday denounced Iceland’s decision to go ahead with a sharply higher whaling quota, voicing concern there were not whales to sustain the hunt. Iceland’s new left-wing government said last week it will maintain an earlier decision for a quota of 150 fin and 150 minke whales this year — […]

Michelle Obama loves her veggies, cue George Will rant about value of fast food

Climate kudos this week go to the more than 10,000 yoots descending on Washington, D.C., today for Power Shift, the largest national youth conference on climate change to date. These young advocates for climate action will spend the weekend strategizing on how to bring about a green energy future, then they’ll pound the halls of […]

For the first time in decades, a healthy school-lunch debate opens

First it was the 2008 (nee 2007) Farm Bill. Then it was Obama’s choices for the top USDA posts. Now it’s the National School Lunch Program. Food issues once lived at the margins of U.S. political discourse, where agribusiness and food-industry interests could control them. Now they’re inching toward the center. A new era has […]

How to build resilient communities in a chaotic world

This is a guest essay by Chip Ward, a former grassroots organizer/activist who has led several successful campaigns to hold polluters accountable. He described his political adventures in Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West and Hope's Horizon: Three Visions for Healing the American Land. This post was originally published at TomDispatch, and it is republished here with Tom's kind permission.

-----

Now that we've decided to "green" the economy, why not green homeland security, too? I'm not talking about interrogators questioning suspects under the glow of compact fluorescent light bulbs, or cops wearing recycled Kevlar recharging their Tasers via solar panels. What I mean is: Shouldn't we finally start rethinking the very notion of homeland security on a sinking planet?

Now that Dennis Blair, the new Director of National Intelligence, claims that global insecurity is more of a danger to us than terrorism, isn't it time to release the idea of "security" from its top-down, business-as-usual, terrorism-oriented shackles? Isn't it, in fact, time for the Obama administration to begin building security we can believe in; that is, a bottom-up movement that will start us down the road to the kind of resilient American communities that could effectively recover from the disasters -- manmade or natural (if there's still a difference) -- that will surely characterize this emerging age of financial and climate chaos? In the long run, if we don't start pursuing security that actually focuses on the foremost challenges of our moment, that emphasizes recovery rather than what passes for "defense," that builds communities rather than just more SWAT teams, we're in trouble.

Today, "homeland security" and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), that unwieldy amalgam of 13 agencies created by the Bush administration in 2002, continue to express the potent, all-encompassing fears and assumptions of our last president's Global War on Terror. Foreign enemies may indeed be plotting to attack us, but, believe it or not (and increasing numbers of people, watching their homes, money, and jobs melt away are coming to believe it), that's probably neither the worst, nor the most dangerous thing in store for us.

Joe Biden’s Middle Class Task Force hosts summit on green jobs

Joe Biden will host the first meeting of his Middle Class Task Force on Friday at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on the potential for green jobs to create a pathway to economic stability. The panelists gathered in Philadelphia — including greens, labor leaders, and the president’s top advisors — will explore several main questions: […]