The Move for Climate Change

The support for climate legislation has seemed to take a turn for the better. Here is a letter from 60 big companies (including Google, The Big Three automakers, Pepsico, Duke Energy and Honeywell) and environmental groups to President Obama that calls for climate legislation to be passed.

Dear Mr. President and Members of the U.S. Senate: We are a broad and diverse group of businesses and organizations that believe America must take control of its energy and economic future while enhancing our national security. We are writing to urge you to move forward this year on comprehensive energy and climate legislation that preserves and creates American jobs while protecting our environment.
The time to act is now. The U.S. needs a comprehensive energy and climate policy that will get us back on track by creating American jobs in the new, low-carbon economy.

The United States has an opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions and become the world's leader in a burgeoning clean energy economy. We face a critical moment that will determine whether we will be able to unleash homegrown American innovation or remain stuck in the economic status quo. Much as the transcontinental railroad ushered in an unprecedented era of expansion, innovation and economic growth, the transition to a diversified clean energy economy offers extraordinary opportunities for environmental and economic rewards. Americans need and deserve a comprehensive energy and climate policy and we urge you to take action without delay.

We are businesses with revenues of over $1.2 trillion and more than 1 million employees; as well as environmental, faith-based and labor organizations representing millions of Americans, all saying that we must secure America's clean energy future.

It's time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bipartisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security, limits emissions, and protects our environment while preserving and creating American jobs.

Ten years ago, it was hard to imagine that big corporations would call for such a major green step in legislation. Today, the problem is real and it has great potential to create massive changes that the world will have to adapt to, costing the human population trillions of dollars and changing the ecological world forever. The effects of climate change are already being seen here in the US. We are seeing the effects from smaller snow packs, disappearing glaciers, and 50/100 year floods happening on the same river in the same decade. This change is happening faster than we think and it needs action. It is great to see some support from an area on constituents that have traditionally been opposed to green legislation.

I found the comparison of options between "American innovation" and "economic status quo" to be quite powerful. This shows that the change will take effort and change, but the ability to make these changes are what makes America become so appealing. We have the power to create change to prevent a climate catastrophe. If inaction is taken, America will become second to other nations that choose to lead the way in stopping climate change and become a part of that "economic status quo". This is going to be a monumental movement meaning huge changes in lifestyles that are needed to prevent disaster, but if action is take out correctly, America will be the great innovator that can lead the world once again.

As much as I don't like Notre Dame, here is a great video from Notre Dame's commencement by Brian Williams with his confidence that America has the power to change. It is both moving and comical.

Gulf Oil Spill: Blessing in Disguise?

With a new health care bill passed and ready to be implemented and now the possibility of a climate change bill being ratified with increased attention brought on by the oil spill, this could be a monumental term for Congress. But keep the emphasis on could.

Last summer, the house passed a version of the infamous 'climate change' bill that environmentalists only dreamed about and coal and oil feared. The bill seems to be making progress as a compromise bill was brought forth on Wednesday in the senate. The major problem is that it is only supported by the democrats along party lines. They will need support from a few of their fellow GOP members in order to get the 60 votes needed to get the bill through the senate without being filibustered. But even after the senate, this bill will have to go back to the house to be ratified as it has some different terms.

This climate bill kicks to the curb the national standard of emissions, instead focusing on emission standards for each individual sector. And even with the big oil spill in the gulf, it aims to encourage offshore drilling. The kicker is that it requires an investigation to take place, carried out by the Department of the Interior, to determine if a state will be economically or environmentally affected by a spill and leaves the final decision up to the state. On top of all this, billions of dollars of federal money would make its way to clean coal technologies and improving the national transportation infrastructure and efficiency.

Regardless of what the bill entails, there are still two sides that are very opinionated. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) stated that "Whatever its intentions, this bill is little more than a job-killing national energy tax". Greenpeace has found the bill to be "a hand out" to big oil and coal and opposes the bill believing that it is not strict enough on carbon emissions. On the other side, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) is optimistic in the bill and finds that reaching 60 votes is "doable" because of the support of big business such as Duke Energy, Honeywell, Dow Corning, and the Edison Electric Institute. These businesses make up the republican base.

Whatever the case, the new oil spill may be an environmental blessing in disguise. It has instilled a new hope into a climate bill that was once seen as dead on the senate floor. It may take a few more compromises, but this bill could make this year in congress one of the most important and memorable years in the past few decades.

More on the issue from the Washington Post

Carbon Footprint in Perspective: Developed Nations vs. Developing Nations

When a country considers carbon footprints, only the amount of carbon a country produces is taken into account. Looking at a carbon footprint by production often leaves developing nations in between a rock and a hard place. Developing countries are often outsourced for the production of cheap goods and as a result bear the brunt of the carbon footprint by burning CO2 and producing carbon that is needed to manufacture these goods. Wealthier and developed nations end up consuming the outsourced goods leaving behind the carbon emissions to poorer, developing nations that have trouble mitigating them. Goods and services that are outsourced to other countries can contribute up to a third of the carbon consumed by a developed nation. This is termed 'Emissions Outsourcing' and results in disparities in the carbon footprints of developed and developing nations. Below is an interesting article from March on businessgreen.com that helps to show the ramifications this has on global climate policy.

Carbon Outsourcing