commissioner.org
| Source | Hans Ehrbar |
| Date | 09/03/08/19:28 |
| Dear Patrick, you wrote:
> > Shouldn't we be doing much more in the cap'n trade debate to remind > > people that the main profiteers are indeed the big energy firms, > > financiers and lawyers, and that this they really should be opposed > > to? UNFORTUNATELY there is no consensus whether cap'n trade as such must be shunned like the devil, or whether some version of it, such as the cap and dividend program promoted by Jim Hansen, can be made to work. When talking to an unsophisticated newcomer to the climate discussion, it's our responsibility to first teach them the generally accepted facts and scientific insights they need to know. Instead of taking a position around contentious issues such as cap'n trade (or nuclear power, or CCS), I think the general fact they need to know is that the companies will use the strategy of bogus solutions: they will use the climate emergency as an excuse to extract subsidies which are designed to help their bottom line and not the climate. OK, I admit, we can do more than that. I think we can safely heap scorn on offsets--Joe Romm consistently calls them rip-offsets and I will recommend to my students to use this terminology. Besides, Gar Lipov has convinced me that price mechanisms cannot be the centerpiece of the policy; the centerpiece must be public investment in research and infrastructure and a good deal of old-fashioned regulation (efficiency standards, outlawing of oil shale and tar sand development, ban on new coal without CCS, transit-oriented urban planning). Try to avoid the word "command and control regulation," and also try to avoid the word "climate skeptics" (they are not skeptics but one-sided deniers and obstructionists). I am still thinking of how to set up my service-learning class this Summer, where students have conversations with ordinary people who may or may not be aware of the climate emergency. I'll tell the students: don't push your favorite solution on them but it is more important that they become aware of the problematic. We can probably also say that a cap and trade system in which the polluters get free allowances, as in the EU ETS, is basically a bribe to get industry on board. Once the real stakeholders in the climate issue, the population, raise their voice, it is to be hoped that such bribes are no longer necessary, but that we have enough power to force the businesses to do the right thing. I also think we have to communicate the seriousness of the situation. My students will be in an unusual situation, and they can use this to make their point. They can say "I wouldn't be ringing your doorbell or sitting in your living room if I didn't think this is a serious situation where we all have to work together." If they meet a hard-core climate denier, it is probably counterproductive to try to convince them on the spot. At this point, the unspoken subtext of the conversation should be: I respect your opinion, please respect my opinion too. Reassure them that you are aware of their economic concerns, and that you are trying everything to come up with a solution which is economically fair. In some situations it might be appropriate to remark that an economic strategy based on cheap and abundant energy is based on an illusion; the times of cheap and abundant energy are over. But be careful with this and formulate it in a polite way because this is an accusation. If you say this you accuse them of having illusions. It may only be appropriate as a come back if they come with accusations first. Don't turn the other cheek but show that you have the arguments and that you could play hardball if you wanted to. But be relaxed about it; instead of winning the argument it is much more important to leave them in a place where they can change their mind later in a face-saving way--because most of them will recognize the truth of the situation eventually. For instance with "Right On", I would try to be congratulatory (without sounding condescending) that he sees the importance and effectiveness of cost of living allowances. But instead of asking those who have COLA to give it up, I would say that in my opinion, everybody should have COLA. The other day, a University of Utah student said on the radio: "If we don't address climate change, we can't address anything else. Social justices, gay rights, cultural rights, racial rights, nothing matters next to this." Although this is strictly true, it is the wrong thing to say. You cannot get allies by saying your issue makes their issue irrelevant. If those concerned about climate change do not take all the other issues on board, if they don't see climate change as the ultimate human rights issue, if climate justice is not the first plank on their platform, they needlessly isolate themselves. In solidarity, Hans |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho