American Forum Op-Ed

AMERICAN FORUM
By Pat Byington

Dr. James McClintock, a renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham marine biologist who has conducted research in Antarctica for more than 25 years, told me the following story.

“You work in a scientific lab in the quietest place on Earth -- Antarctica.

"There’s a Crack! Boom!

"You rush to the window of your remote lab with a number of your fellow scientists, and you witness a glacier 'calving' a chunk of ice the size of a house into the water. Adrenaline permeates the room.

"Ten years ago, that exciting and incredible sight would happen about once a week. It was an event. Something rare.

"Today, at that same lab in Antarctica, the calving glacial ice, the explosive sounds, are a daily occurrence.

"The scientists are almost 'ho-hum' about it, barely lifting their heads to recognize the melting ice."

Such is life in a warming world.

McClintock has spent most of his life searching the ends of the earth for a cure for cancer and other human diseases. In fact, his research team has discovered marine species in the Antarctic that produce compounds active against skin cancer and influenza.

McClintock is not an alarmist. He does not have a political agenda. But he knows firsthand the earth is warming and he understands some of the consequences. Mid-winter temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula where he works are 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they were 60 years ago. That may not seem like a big difference to us non-scientists, but it’s devastating to a delicate polar ecosystem (and other ecosystems).

In fact, this spring, McClintock and his research associates documented an invasion of king crabs that are likely to endanger fragile Antarctic clams, snails, and brittlestars, or perhaps even the sea squirts that he and his colleagues study that could unlock a cure for skin cancer. This new predator, with its crushing claws, is moving in because of the rapidly warming seas. Once they make their way up onto the Antarctic shelf, an archaic marine ecosystem that has been without crushing predators for millennia will find itself largely defenseless. King crabs could very well destroy McClintock’s living lab. For McClintock, it’s like discovering someone is about to burn down your home and your life’s work and possessions.

I have always believed the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council motto “Where the nation turns for independent and expert advice” accurately portrays that most venerable institution. As a nation, we have been seeking their advice since President Lincoln established this scientific body in 1863. Last month, without much fanfare, and little to no attention from the national media, the National Academies released their latest congressionally requested report on climate change.

The report, “America’s Choices,” does not pull any punches. It reaffirms that climate change is occurring now and that the most effective strategy to combat it would be to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions immediately.

What makes this report more shocking is the fact that it is not new. As far back as 2005, the National Academies of the U.S., France, Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Germany, Brazil and China have jointly called upon policy makers throughout the world to address climate change. The message from the National Academies six years ago was virtually identical to the one in 2011. Climate change is real. We need to drastically reduce greenhouse emissions. We need to aggressively seek technological and scientific solutions. Delaying will only make matters worse.

And now, more than ever, the signs of climate change are becoming starker. The extreme weather and floods in the Midwest and South this spring, historical droughts and fires in Texas and Arizona, permafrost disappearing in Russia/Siberia, floods in Pakistan, massive drought followed by flooding in Australia and whole villages in Alaska disappearing because of sea level rise are just a few recent examples.

The climate is changing so rapidly the Arbor Day Foundation has changed its recommendations for when and where you should plant your trees.

Are we going to follow the National Academy of Sciences and countless scientists’ advice on climate change? Are we going to listen to Dr. James McClintock and try to save a place that can lead to cures for cancer? Or are we going to barely lift our heads and refuse to recognize the climate changing around us?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byington is publisher of Bama Environmental News. He is a longtime environmental advocate from Birmingham, Alabama who has served on numerous state and national environmental boards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by the American Forum. 7/11

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Lilia Diaz

When hundreds of private investors came together at the 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk (INCR) in New York this past January, they weren’t there to debate the existence of global climate change or humans’ role in causing it.

They were there to talk about how to address the negative environmental impacts of the current climate crisis, while at the same time turning it into an opportunity for creating jobs and making money.

The private investors who belong to the INCR are increasingly embracing a reality that seems to elude Washington D.C. – investing in renewable and clean energy industries is the next crucial step towards digging ourselves out of this economic abyss and building a sustainable world economy.

The “2010 Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy” demonstrates that what these investors are demanding is nothing short of bold leadership and clear policy decisions which pave the way for their investment in these industries.

Washington’s inexplicable failure to act on this issue by enacting comprehensive climate change legislation has placed New Mexico in the position of needing to advocate for itself. If New Mexico doesn’t take proactive steps to address the statewide spectre of carbon emissions now, then we run the risk of missing out on millions of investment dollars which could flow into our struggling economy. Other governments around the world are jockeying to take advantage of these opportunities, so New Mexico must act quickly to establish itself as a leader in the clean, renewable energy market.

Predictably, the measures needed to address climate change and jump-start economic revival have met fierce resistance from the oil, gas, and coal industries, and their army of lobbyists who have resorted to fear tactics to mislead and confuse consumers.

A local energy industry spokesperson and other opponents testified against New Energy Economy’s (NEE) petition to cap greenhouse gases at the August 16th Environmental Improvement Board hearing in Santa Fe. They issued dire warnings that NEE’s proposal will cost too much to implement and will lose the state money. No statement could be more disingenuous.

Contrast the industry’s alarmist arguments with the fact-based assessment of Brendan McDonagh, CEO of HSBC-North American Holdings, Inc. McDonagh reported that the climate business sector now generates annual global revenues in excess of $500 billion, which is already larger than the global aerospace and defense industries. Moreover, these revenues are expected to rise to $2 trillion by 2020.

Now that’s the kind of “green” that should be going into the pockets of consumers and businesses in New Mexico.

New Mexico must pave the way for companies who want to invest in renewable energy and who want to do it here. Our state ranks 2nd in the nation for solar potential, 12th for wind potential, and boasts vast untapped geothermal and biomass resources. With all of this raw potential, we could lead the nation in clean, affordable, renewable energy production.

Capping carbon will benefit New Mexico by expanding and diversifying our energy resources. Sandia National Labs recently released a report which estimates that the cost of inaction will be much higher than that of implementing carbon cap measures.

Study co-author George Backus, an energy engineer and technical expert at Sandia, says the take-away is that “the uncertainty associated with climate change validates the need to act protectively and proactively.”

Regulation is a policy signal, which acts as an economic stimulus by spurring investment, research and development in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Mindy Lubber, President of Ceres and Director of INCR (the group has more than 90 members and $13 trillion in assets), highlighted that the financial industry has a huge role to play in closing the climate investment gap, and that there is a great need for policy change beyond financing the transition to a low-carbon economy.

NEE’s petition has rallied strong support from the business community and advocacy organizations around the state, many who are co-petitioners, and offered compelling testimony at the August 16th hearings. The New Mexico Pediatric Society, League of Women Voters NM, Amigos Bravos, Positive Energy, San Juan Citizen’s Alliance, and Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, to name a few, demonstrate the broad range of organizations that support a carbon cap as part of what is nothing less than an energy paradigm shift.

According to the world’s top investors, the switch to a clean energy economy is not a matter of if, but when.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diaz is the education and outreach director for New Energy Economy. The hearings resumed on October 4th in Santa Fe. The 2010 Summit Final Report can be found at http://www.incr.com/summit and the Sandia report at https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/Climate_Risk_Assessment.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 10/10

Kathleen Rogers

AMERICAN FORUM

By Kathleen Rogers and Jigar Shah

Disasters from climate change are becoming more frequent and more severe
- consider this year alone, with the devastating flooding in Pakistan, the Russian heat wave, an incredible ice chunk calving off of Greenland
- and New York's hottest summer on record.

Jigar Shah

Governments are becoming exhausted dealing with these impacts and realizing that adapting to a changing climate will be difficult and expensive. There is no scientific debate that every major ecosystem in the world is declining. But we are not winning the policy debate, as we somehow have to convince people that these impacts affect them personally. It's now or never to win the climate war and we need a new approach.

We need to shift the debate away from a singular focus on carbon dioxide and back to something that affects us all personally. Issues like the rapid depletion of our natural assets, access to energy for the poor, increased jobs and economic development. We all want more comfortable homes, lower fuel bills, local jobs, fewer polluting coal plants, less reliance on foreign oil, cleaner air and a world to pass on to the next generation. These values will help us win the debate.

As the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference proved, policy is necessary but not sufficient. A new, complementary and different skill set is needed in addition to traditional methods - an investment in the tools to move capital not just lobby for votes.

We already have the technology. - nearly 50- percent of today's emissions can be profitably offset utilizing current methods. We also need to increase our green investment to create a level playing field. - there is $550-billion currently in annual fossil fuel subsidies and an extra $550- billion needed in green capital investment.

As we have seen in Copenhagen, governments that are defined by their national borders - that the environment does not recognize - cannot do this alone. We need new models of leadership whose only agenda is that of the planet and can look at global economic responses to this opportunity. As businesses have played a significant role in creating this situation - business must take responsibility for driving positive change at the speed and scale that needs to happen in the world.

Earlier this year the Creating Climate Wealth conference in Washington brought together several hundred of the world's top entrepreneurs to discuss impediments to investment in solving climate change. And at BusinessClimate 2010, we re-convened this discussion as part of New York Climate Week. It is these types of groundbreaking events gathering new visionary voices that will bring about the new models of climate investment we need.

This process must start by transforming our organizations to not just look at how we have less negative impact on the environment - but instead how we can add value to our natural world. Fortunately the technology for transformation is already there - we just need to help break down the barriers to start letting capital flow to get thriving marketplaces to scale change.

We can actually meet a goal of saving 17 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2020, with today's technology and today's entrepreneurs if there were only a level playing field. Then we can reassess how to continue meeting our emissions reductions by 2050.

There are immediate things we can do to make a difference. We needn't fear the economy either. Investments in green are still strong and investments in solving climate change will pay off in terms of emissions reductions and wealth creation. We need to remove fossil fuel subsidies. We need to transition away from monopolies in electricity and energy distribution. Across the economy there are climate change solutions that will enable consumers, and businesses to save money, create jobs and reduce our impact on the environment.

This is the opportunity of our lifetime to create a new approach to sustainable wealth that also puts a value on our natural assets and creating the conditions that will mean all businesses can profit from driving down emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers is President of Earth Day Network. Shah is CEO of Carbon War Room.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 10/10

By Riane Eisler

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference makes evident potential catastrophic effects of climate change, including its enormous economic and human tolls. It also clearly shows how poor nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and island states will suffer most from the inevitable floods, droughts and other weather disasters.

But there’s more that needs to be made clear in Copenhagen. If we look closely, there’s a hidden truth with huge implications that we must bring to the attention of conference delegates to ensure that allocated funds actually protect those most vulnerable to these natural disasters.

Studies show that women are 14 times more likely to die in natural disasters. One heart-rending study of a Bangladesh flash flood found that 90 percent of casualties were female. Many factors contributed to this high casualty rate, all were avoidable. A woman’s role in this Southeast Asian nation, as in most of the Middle East and parts of Africa, is one of dependency -- so of course, these Bangladeshi women were not taught to swim. But perhaps the most important factor was that they lived and died in a culture where women are so rigidly controlled that they aren’t permitted to leave their homes without being accompanied by a male family member. When the flash flood occurred, they sadly stayed and drowned.

Such cultural restrictions are inhuman, not only to women, but to children. Yet, their implications for any Copenhagen climate pacts are still generally ignored.

Also ignored are studies showing that when women become involved in disaster-response planning and training there are far fewer casualties -- not only of women, but of children and the elderly. One study even found no casualties when women engaged in disaster-response preparedness.

It’s incumbent upon us to bring this information to the attention of U.N. officials such as Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to official national delegations and nongovernmental groups attending the Copenhagen meeting.

In contributing funds for disaster training and response, the U.S. should insist that a sizable portion be given to women’s organizations. This is essential if our monies are to be used effectively and equitably.

We can use the Copenhagen conference as a way of changing restrictive traditions that are egregious human-rights violations (forbidding persons to leave their home alone is a form of house arrest!). We can also help the U.N. carry through on its promise to institute gender architecture mainstreaming. This will promote equal partnership between men and women, and show that when we speak of democracy and human rights, we really mean it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eisler is the author of “The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics” and president of the Center for Partnership Studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

by Sarah van Gelder

As the Copenhagen Climate Summit approaches, some world leaders predict there will be either no deal or one so weak that it will be virtually worthless.

Little wonder. Climate change could be one of the toughest issues the world has ever faced, less because of the technical challenges than the politics. That’s why the growing climate movement is so important to watch. Its success could determine if world leaders feel enough heat to take action.

What makes the politics of this moment so challenging? Unlike other critical issues, this one requires that we take action, based on science, before we see much damage. If we wait until the effects of long-term pollution are fully felt, climate scientists tell us, we will have passed critical thresholds that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to turn down the global thermostat.

Even now, these changes do more than cause occasional heat waves, droughts, and monster storms. As the effects of greenhouse gas pollution accelerate, millions of people will experience flooding, rising seas, crop failures, food shortages and drought conditions like those of the dust bowl era.

Still, it’s not too late. Climate scientists say we can yet avert the direst consequences if we halt the increase in pollution by 2015, then bring it down sharply. That means taking action now.

Yet, politicians worldwide have short-term reasons to pass this hot-potato issue off to future generations. After all, “cheap” coal-fired electricity offers high profits for a few companies and their shareholders, while the resulting climate damage is distributed to other people around the world.

And dealing with the crisis requires massive investments toward a transition to clean energy. While such investments will benefit economies in the long run, in the short term they will cost taxpayers money. And entrenched, powerful interests — from the oil and gas industry to mega-banks — use their money and connections to push for government handouts to subsidize business as usual. Some are even funding the think tanks and AstroTurf front groups that foster confusion and doubt about climate science.

In poorer countries, citizens want economic growth. They demand it. They want the cars, airline trips, big houses and high energy use we’ve grown accustomed to in the U.S. And without seeing the wealthier countries stepping up, they won't allow their governments to reduce carbon emissions.

Although every community, every nation and every family stands to lose without action on global warming, the political leaders gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate a climate treaty haven’t felt heat from their own citizens -- at least not yet.

The good news is that around the world there are climate heroes, those doing what they can -- putting up solar panels, standing in the way of coal plants, cutting their own household carbon footprints and promoting the clean energy technology we need.

And the pressure is mounting from those who want action. Young people, for instance, are mobilizing into a powerful force for change. Unlike the leaders meeting in Copenhagen, they know they will have to live with consequences of failing to avert climate chaos. These young people are lobbying, they are getting trained in green jobs, and they are building a movement they say is simply about survival.

Don’t underestimate these youths. Their energy and hard work helped elect the country’s first African-American president.

But it isn’t only the youth who are stepping up. People in all sectors of society are coming to see that our elected officials can’t get the job done unless they feel the heat at home. That puts a special responsibility on Americans. The world is waiting for leadership from the U.S., the country with one of the highest rates of greenhouse gas pollution. The future of our planet may hinge on whether “we the sovereign people” of the U.S. insist that our leaders step up to this global threat and lead the world toward a viable agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah van Gelder is executive editor of YES! Magazine www.yesmagazine.org, which has just published a special issue on climate action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09