Leaders from around the world are meeting this week at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York City. There, the United States has a chance to retake our place among the great nations of history. We have a chance to get our mojo back. But to do so, we must boldly assume international leadership in the fight against climate change in ways that we have not yet done. We must turn our attention, our passion, our technical prowess and our creative economy to solving the growing life-cycle cost of burning carbon.
We now need to summon the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that undergirded other great national historical successes, such as creating universal public education, winning World War II, and landing on the moon.
This year, we will see what bold, world “bi-partisan” action looks like; next year, in Paris, the world body will work on implementation.
Yet, with the U.S. public divided on climate, how might President Obama frame the U.S. position as he talks to the world?
Obama will refer to “the science.” And it is a given, at the U.N., that “science says” global warming and man-induced climate change is real. This may not work for many U.S. citizens.
“Science rules,” but perhaps what actually rules for most of us is a whole constellation of legacy beliefs, principle fears, and hopes that frames our understanding of climate. Obama has got his work cut out, speaking for the nation and both parties.
A case in point is close to home. Witness the controversy in our Everett area over The Herald article on the coal and oil train protest (Sept. 2, “Protest blocks train tracks.”) The article prompted 100-plus reader comments on both sides of the issue.
While the U.S. is politically divided and possibly stuck in the climate debate, the U.N. will note:
Much of the world has a high level of concern over global warming, enabling European countries, and — since 2013 — Americas’ countries: Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia and Peru, pass or announce intent to legislate major new policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The world’s six multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, plan to step up targeted lending to combat climate change.
The U.S. military, both active duty — like Admiral Samuel Locklear, and retired — such as Rear Admiral Len Hering, weigh in heavily on the need to reduce world instability as a result of threat-multiplier effects of changing climate.
The vast majority of scientists around the world find convincing evidence of man-induced climate change, and many urge prompt action based on an approximately 95 percent level of confidence in the science about what is happening.
Will we join other nations, world banks, scientists and an outspoken U.S. military to take action? How might the U.S. overcome our partisan divide?
Ideally, we will use free markets, rely less on government, and go easy on citizens of all incomes.
Everyone needs to face facts about the total cost of energy. The price we see at the fuel pump is nominal. Our marketplace requires suitable price signals about fuel and pollution cost. Both parties can support full disclosure about life-cycle energy cost to guide our consumption — renewable energy, included.
Taking the broader, world perspective, we may acknowledge what Americans, per capita, consume and emit as compared to other countries. With China’s low per-person carbon footprint and heavy investment in renewable energy, we may decide to stop using China as an excuse for not acting.
We’re looking for something “bold,” but politically palatable. Something conservative and progressive. Something that restores Adam Smith’s “wisdom of the marketplace” for energy. Hopefully, something, “big.”
I’ll suggest a gradually increasing national tax on the carbon content of fuels — something that is not quite a tax … more like a fee. The fee serves as an up-front price signal for full cost of energy. All revenue is given back annually to citizens as a dividend check, or to off-set existing taxes. Net tax increase is zero. Consumers seek to minimize household energy cost by shifting to clean, efficient technologies. Both parties can support fees returned to households and spending controlled by consumers, as proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby.
Let’s all check in on the world forum in New York this week to find out what the world suggests for “bipartisan” world solutions, solutions that can pass.
Lee James, a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby, wrote this on behalf of its Whidbey Island chapter.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
