Ecosystem Collapse: A Clarion Call For A New Way of Being Human

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo51Re1JO4U&feature=player_embedded]

*

It’s been three and a half years since I began talking about, blogging about, and working for action on, climate change. It took me a while to call myself a “climate activist” but it’s a label that I now wear proudly, although I am starting to prefer the term “fossil fuel abolitionist”.  Like the abolitionists who worked to abolish the slave trade, climate activists/fossil fuel abolitionists are up against an entrenched economic system that has no intention of changing, and those who profit from the status quo are willing to fight change with any means necessary. But all of us in the industrial world, and others around the world as well, benefit from the cheap and plentiful fossil fuel party we’ve been on for the last hundred and fifty years. As Canadian journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk points out in his new book, Energy Slaves, those of us in North America and Europe behave like slaveholders of old in the way we use energy. Like Caribbean plantation owners, we live lives of extraordinary extravagance, and – like those same plantation owners – we feel entitled to our way of  life; like slaveholders of a bygone era, we turn a blind eye to the horrors that our lifestyle requires. Nikiforuk argues that the price of our “energy slaves” (fossil fuels) is getting higher and higher, both extrinsically and intrinsically. Nikiforuk’s book is a clarion call for a new and radical emancipation movement to free us from our enslavement to dirty energy (slavery, it turns out, is a two-way street).

As the IUCN video above outlines – note that it’s three years old, and the stats have only gotten worse – the news about the state of the world’s ecosystems, the ones that humans and all other species require for life, is dire. People who have devoted their lives to studying these things tell us that the ocean has absorbed so much carbon dioxide it is on the verge of becoming too acidic to sustain shellfish and coral life; methane releases in the arctic are climbing as the permafrost melts (remember methane is a greenhouse gas that has 21 times more heat-trapping ability in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide); 75% of genetic diversity in agricultural crops has been lost, and over 70% of the world’s fisheries are fully, or over, exploited.

Need I go on? The signs are clear – humanity, as a species, is staring catastrophe in the face.  Or rather, catastrophe is staring us in the face while we are busy averting our eyes, fixating on something – anything – else. How about, oh, I don’t know, shopping, our waistlines, sex, reality television…fill in the blanks (perhaps blogging about climate change, or Facebook)! When I began my journey as a climate activist back in October of 2009, I believed that if people just understood the enormity of the consequences for our children and the planet if we don’t act to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, they would take action; I saw my job as “shaking people awake”. Three and a half years later, I have learned that this is not the case; the warning signs are everywhere, and every day that passes the signs are getting harder and harder to ignore (see “Runaway” video below). Although increasing numbers of people around the globe are becoming active in the fight to preserve a stable climate, the overwhelming majority of people have not yet been moved to get involved in staving off climate catastrophe or the looming mass extinction event. I have struggled with this truth – most of these people choosing not to act are good people, who love their children and grandchildren as much as I do my kids; and yet they choose the “blue pill” of unconsciousness and apathy rather than the “red pill” of awakening and action, to use a metaphor from The Matrix. Even those of us who choose the red pill, and who can see the writing on the wall, may feel that the odds are so stacked against us in this struggle for sanity and against all-consuming greed that the fight is futile. Recognition of the horror of the abyss we are digging for ourselves can be overwhelming.

Edvard Munch's The Scream (in public domain)
Edvard Munch’s The Scream

There are days on my journey as a climate activist that I feel (and possibly look!) like the human in this famous painting. The news is really that bad. And yet, like the humans on the runaway train in Cordell Barker’s animation (below) we, collectively, are partying on, wasting the time and resources that could be put to use changing the trajectory of the climate “train”. If you want to know just how bad, watch Dr. Guy McPherson’s talk at last November’s Bluegrass Bioneers conference (click here). I’ve hesitated to post the video on 350orbust because the last thing I have wanted to do is overwhelm my readers and plunge them into despair about our situation; there are already too many people who are paralyzed into inaction by the enormity of what we are facing.  But there’s no avoiding it; every single sign in the biosphere is screaming “stop” to our fossil-fueled madness, and yet we carry recklessly on.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/v_oh4zGtRsc]

*

Even as I write these words tears come to my eyes; I want my children to live in a world with a stable climate something like I inherited, with food security and a secure political environment.  I want there to be wild places for them to go, where the whales and the eagles thrive and the fish are abundant, where the hand of humans hasn’t disturbed nature. But it turns out, I can’t promise them that, no matter how much or how loudly I ring the climate alarm bell. Collectively we, the human species, are entering a “dark night of the soul”. For those not familiar with the term, medieval Spanish mystic St John of the Cross wrote a poem using that term to describe the soul’s difficult separation from, and journey towards, God.  Whether or not the language of God resonates with you, there is no denying that humans are about to be plunged into a darkness of our own making, and in that hardship will be offered the seeds of our “salvation”, that we become nurturers of the earth and “all our relations” rather than destroyers. St John of the Cross’s imagery describes a maturation process which includes growing in the ability to love; one just needs to look around at the world to know we are failing miserably to manifest love for our fellow human beings and the creatures we share the planet with. Greed, lust for the almighty dollar, has overcome love and we are descending into collective suicidal madness.

So, what now? There are people much more thoughtful and well-educated than me who are articulating responses to this crisis, working through despair towards a response that rejects the mindset and lifestyle which have got us to this point and is congruent with the new values humans will need to embrace. Dr Guy McPherson, who unflinchingly looks climate and economic catastrophe in the eyes, writes in a blog post entitled “only love remains”:

Our knowledge of DNA informs us that the odds against any one of us being here are greater than the odds against being a particular grain of sand on all the world’s beaches. Indeed, the odds are much greater than that: they exceed the odds of being a single atom plucked from the entire universe. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says, “In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I that are privileged to be here, privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why.”

The privilege to be here, on this life-giving planet at this astonishing time in human history, is sufficient to inspire awe in the most uncaring of individuals. At this late juncture in the age of industry, at the dawn of our day on Earth, we still have love: love for each other, love for our children and grandchildren, love for nature. One could argue it is all we have left.

We all have a part to play in the mystery unfolding around us; just because it’s a bit part (because they all are!) doesn’t make it unimportant. Lately, I’ve been embracing the “Eat, Pray, Love” mantra as my response to the craziness, although “Breathe” should be in there as well. And by “eat” I mean local organic nonGMO – there’s no room for Monsanto in the new world. Namaste.

graphic: 350.org
graphic: 350.org

*

More links:

Learning From Dogs: Going Beyond The Self

Dear Guy McPherson, What The Heck?

The New Climate State: Climate Change And The Deadly Extremes That Have Been Hitting The Northern Hemisphere

A Fork In the Road

“Transition to a post-fossil fuel world of clean energies will not occur as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy. Fossil fuels are cheap only because they are subsidized and do not pay their costs to society. Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and use have high costs in human health, food production, and natural ecosystems, with costs borne by the public. Costs of climate change and ocean acidification also are borne by the public, especially young people and future generations.”

dr james hansen fork in the road

*

Renowned climate scientist turned activist Dr James Hansen wrote in the Huffington Post about the “fork in the road” humanity is facing:

We stand at a fork in the road. Conventional oil and gas supplies are limited. We can move down the path of dirtier more carbon-intensive unconventional fossil-fuels, digging up the dirtiest tar sands and tar shales, hydrofracking for gas, continued mountain-top removal and mechanized destructive long-wall coal mining. Or we can choose the alternative path of clean energies and energy efficiency.  

Click here to read the full article.

How Republicans (& Canadian Conservatives) Can Answer Obama’s Challenge To ‘Reduce The Threat Of Climate Change’

obama's state of the union.2013

Today’s blog post is courtesy of Citizens Climate Lobby:

In his State of the Union address, the President said, ‘If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations [from climate change], I will.’  Republicans who wish to avoid more regulations should embrace the free-market approach of a revenue-neutral tax on carbon.

Saying that “for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change,’ President Obama used his State of the Union address to reaffirm his commitment to actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change,” said Obama. But with prospects appearing dim for legislation to price carbon, the President quickly added, “But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

While the President did not spell out “the executive actions we can take,” many observers assume the centerpiece of that plan will be to use the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA has already formulated rules for new power plants that will virtually rule out construction of coal-fired facilities. The President now intends to regulate emissions from existing power plants, a move that may require the closing of many coal-fired plants and produce howls of protest from GOP lawmakers.

Republican efforts to block such regulations are likely to be a waste of time and energy, given the Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Rather than curse the darkness, the GOP could light a solar-powered lamp. They can unleash the power of the marketplace to speed the transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean sources of energy. The mechanism to motivate that transition is a consumer-friendly tax on carbon that gives revenue back to households.

A number of conservative economists have endorsed this approach.

Art Laffer, President Reagan’s economic advisor has said, “By eliminating subsidies for all fuel types and making all fuel types accountable for their costs, free enterprise will make clear the best fuels for our future. Reduce taxes on something we want more of – income –and tax something we arguably want less of – carbon pollution. It’s a win-win.”

Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to President George W. Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, also supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax, saying, “Economists have long understood that the key to smart environmental policy is aligning private incentives with true social costs and benefits.  That means putting a price on carbon emissions, so households and firms will have good reason to reduce their use of fossil fuels and to develop alternative energy sources.”

The concept behind the carbon tax is simple: Polluter pays. There are many costs to society not reflected in the price of fossil fuels. These include the health costs of respiratory problems induced by air pollution, military costs to secure the shipment of oil from the Middle East, and costs to repair damage from weather-related disasters that are becoming more frequent and destructive because of global warming. A tax on carbon begins to take these costs into account, ultimately making clean energy the cheaper and preferable option.

What would a simple and effective carbon tax policy look like?

  •   Start with a tax on coal, oil and gas of $15 per ton on CO2 that each fuel will emit when burned. The result at the gas pump would be an additional 13 cents per gallon.
  • Increase the tax by $10 a ton each year.
  • Implement the tax at the fuel’s first point of sale – the mine, wellhead or port of entry.
  • Take the revenue from the carbon tax, divide it equally among everyone in the U.S.,  and return it to consumers, preferably as monthly or quarterly “dividends.”
  •  To protect American businesses from unfair foreign competition, apply border tariffs on goods coming in from countries that do not have comparable carbon pricing.

The tax, which is imposed upstream at the first point of sale, will eventually be passed down to consumers. By returning revenue to households, we protect consumers from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon tax. At the same time, these rising costs influence consumer choices, like making their homes more energy efficient or purchasing vehicles that are more fuel-efficient.

By motivating clean-energy investments in the private sector, federal subsidies to spur the development of solar, wind and other technologies will eventually be unnecessary. Yet another reason Republicans should want to embrace a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

The provision of border tariffs in such legislation does far more than protect American businesses. Republicans often reject national policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the argument that our efforts will make no difference if other countries aren’t doing the same. Senator Rubio’s stance, reported in a BuzzFeed interview Feb. 5, is typical:

“Anything we would do on that would have a real impact on the economy but probably, if it’s only us doing it, would have a very negligible impact on the environment. The United States is a country, not a planet. If you did all these things they’re talking about, what impact would it really have?”

A border tariff would negate that argument. If companies doing business with the U.S. must pay a duty on carbon, trading partners like China and India will prefer that the revenue is deposited in their own treasuries rather than given to the United States. Carbon tariffs, thereby, become a strong incentive for other countries to follow the U.S. lead and implement their own carbon tax.

The President has made it clear that, one way or another, America will “respond to the threat of climate change.” The question is whether that response is through expansion of government regulations or through the power of the marketplace. Republicans, who abhor the former, should embrace the latter with a revenue-neutral tax on carbon.

Stop the phony ‘debate’ about climate science

Republicans would find it easier to discuss climate solutions if they accepted the conclusion of nearly every scientific study done on global warming: It’s happening, and human activity is the primary cause.

Senator Rubio, like a number of his colleagues, continually casts doubt on climate science with statements like this:

“Well, first of all, the climate’s always changing. That’s not the fundamental question. The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what’s contributing most to it. And I understand that people say there’s a significant scientific consensus on that issue. But I’ve actually seen reasonable debate on that principle.”

Reasonable debate? Let’s direct the senator’s attention to the following pie chart:

Powell-Science-Pie-Chart

Jim Powell, who was a member of National Science Board for 12 years,[1] conducted a search of peer-reviewed climate change articles from 1991 to 2012. Of the 13,950 articles he reviewed, only 24 “clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.”

The visual representation of Powell’s study should end all discussion. We must waste no more time debating the existence and cause of climate change. Attention must now focus on solutions.

Disasters awaken public to climate reality

At the beginning of the year, the U.S. government confirmed what most Americans already knew: 2012 was the hottest year our nation has ever experienced, shattering the previous record set in 1998 by a full degree.  That record heat contributed to a host of disasters that awakened many to the harsh consequences of a warming climate.

It started last year with wildfires in the West. Trees, ravaged by drought and insects thriving in warmer temperatures, became kindling for infernos that consumed more than 9 million acres across the U.S. In one horrific episode, a wall of flame swept into Colorado Springs and reduced 346 homes to ashes.

Then came the drought. At its peak last summer, 65 percent of the U.S. was experiencing moderate or worse drought conditions. The impact on the agricultural sector has been devastating, as corn crops withered and grass used to feed cattle fell into short supply. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. estimated the drought reduced U.S. gross domestic product between 0.5 and 1 percent. Damage estimates range between $75 billion and $150 billion. Dust storms across the Great Plains conjure images of the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s.

More and more Americans became aware that something was wrong last spring when record-breaking high temperatures in early March gave way to scorching heat in the summer. Jaw-dropping images of the record ice loss in the Arctic (at left) provided further evidence that our world is heating up.

Climate change really hit home, however, with the arrival in late October of Superstorm Sandy, which inflicted damage in excess of $60 billion. Recovery and cleanup efforts continue months after the storm roared ashore. The influence of global warming was evident in Sandy’s intensity, size and path.

Hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires are all naturally-occurring phenomena that happened long before the current rise in global temperatures. What’s different is that our weather is now “juiced” – much like a baseball player on steroids – by a warmer climate, increasing the odds that severe weather will strike with greater intensity. Climate Central has an excellent series of short videos – “Extreme Weather 101” – explaining the impact of climate change on drought, heat waves, snowfall and rainfall.

If this is what our world looks like with barely 1 degree Celsius of warming in the past century, what hellish future awaits us if average global temperatures climb 4 degrees C or   6 degrees C (11 degrees Fahrenheit), as a number of studies have predicted?

The longer we delay action to address climate change, the more difficult and costly it will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that prevent us from breaching the 2 degress C threshold of global warming considered manageable by most scientists. Despite the toxic atmosphere in Washington, Democrats and Republicans must work together to enact legislation that will put a price on carbon, one that will speed the transition from fossil fuels to clean sources of energy.

arctic ice. 1980 and 2012


[1] First appointed by President Reagan and then by President George H.W. Bush.

Dramatic Increase In Arctic Methane Release Requires Dramatic Increase In Political Will To Address Climate Crisis

admiral titley quote*

All eyes in the climate change community are going to be on President Obama tonight as he delivers his State of the Union address, which outlines his administration’s vision for the next four years. The clip below,  from AP, discusses the urgent need for Obama to address climate change (although one wonders why they chose Bill Gates to weigh in on the connection between the current extreme weather and climate change).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-pZE6iZQVY]

*

As Obama prepares his speech, Mother Nature isn’t waiting for humans to act on climate change. I’m hoping to be reassured in the State of the Union speech that we humans aren’t completely suicidal and lazy, but I’m not sure. The latest news on methane release is very alarming:

January 2013 has seen vast amounts of methane rising from the Arctic Ocean. CH4 molecule is 256 times more powerful in trapping sun’s energy than CO2. If summer time phytoplankton devour CO2 and these are then eaten by methane-belching zooplankton as their exhalation product, a very dangerous positive feedback loop is established between photosynthesizing plankton in summer and methanogenic zooplankton that devour them in the winter darkness, effectively setting a course where CO2 is being converted into CH4 by the ocean microbes. It could also be a result of open oceans in winter darkness leaking out as a result of reduction in methane consuming plankton and bacteria in seas. This would allow more deep water methane to escape without being consumed to CO2.

global methane emergency

The Eaarth will put up with only so much abuse, and she is starting to send us louder and louder signals that we need to dramatically change the way we treat her – like our lives depend upon it! Looking for ideas to respond?  There’s so many great people and organizations doing amazing work out there.  Here’s a few of my favourites:

Citizens Climate Lobby

Transition Network

Post Carbon Institute

Getting Serious About Climate Change, Like Our Lives Depended On It

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ftm5tN21IJw]

*

Happy Friday!  Those of you in eastern and central North America who are getting blasted by a winter storm, stay warm and off the roads!  If you are warm and dry, and find the time to curl up with a good book or good friends, you might even enjoy it. And remember, as one of my Facebook friends posted this morning:

In terms of the strength and frequency of extreme weather events? These are the best times than you will ever know for the rest of your life. Unless of course we get serious about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. That means each of us getting serious. Really. Like our lives depended on it.

Here’s the just-published official video for the song “Nightlife” from Cityreal & Wes Mackey’s “Good Morning Blues” album. The video was shot in Fort McMurray and the Athabasca Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada. NASA’s James Hansen has called the tar sands a “climate bomb” that, if released into the atmosphere, would mean “game over” for the climate. Do we really want to gamble that he’s wrong?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gIDsorcz0ow]

*

If you want to know more about the converting bitumen in sand into useable oil, and what it means in terms of ground, air, and climate pollution, check out this video as well as the links below it on YouTube.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A&feature=player_embedded]

*

More links:

Biodiversity Safeguards Against Natural Disaster, Study Finds

Are We Heading For A 6 Degree Temperature Rise?

And more coverage of the current deficit of democracy in Canada:

Tories Stick With Misleading Public

Canadian Democracy on Decline, While Renewable Energy Surges In Other Countries

I’m on the road this week doing several climate change presentations to various Catholic organizations and churches, so I have very little time to spend on the computer. Here’s a few of the graphics I came across when I popped onto Facebook this morning – click on them to read more.

I may not have said this recently, but I have a totally awesome bunch of FB friends – it’s so wonderful to share this journey into a sustainable future with them!

desmog blog pollution in public square*

And a related link: Democracy The Big Loser in Canada’s Parliament

It looks like Australia may have turned the corner on dirty energy: thanks to a price on carbon pollution and technology breakthroughs, coal and fossil fuels are on the outs in Oz (350.org):

renewables in australia

*

spain and wind energy

COP18: Canada’s Climate Fail Or Climate Legacy?

Graphic: DirtyOilSands.org
Graphic: DirtyOilSands.org

 

 

DirtyOilSands.org, tells us that for the first time since taking the position of Canada’s Environment Minister,  Peter Kent has agreed to meet with climate organizers. “Over the past year, Kent has met with the oil lobbyist 48 times, and so this may be our one shot to even things out. But we can’t do it alone. We need you.  ASAP, Please ask Peter Kent your question on climate, the tar sands and Canada’s rollback of environmental protections.   Tweet @ec_minister with the hashtag #AskKent”

If you aren’t on twitter, you can also email Mr. Kent at peter.ken@parl.gc.ca, or telephone his Parliament Hill office at 613-992-0253. Let’s remind him that this is his chance for a climate legacy he can be proud of.

You could also ask him why Canadian tax payer dollars continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry (the richest industry on the planet) at a rate that is five times more than the amount the UN climate aid fund is asking from Canada, and which Canada is refusing to support. See BusinessWeek: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Five Times Climate Aid.

Doha Climate Talks: Fiddling While Planet Burns

It’s a plus 2 Celsius December day in northern Ontario, 11 degrees warmer than the average high for this day. The UN Climate talks in Doha Qatar continue for the rest of this week, not that you would know that they were going on if you read the mainstream Canadian media. They are missing in action on this global event, following the lead of our current federal government. Apparently Canadians aren’t demanding any better, from either our government or our media. I guess we are going to have to go even nearer the climate cliff than we are already, before we change our planet- and future-destroying ways.

But there’s still so much beauty in our world. Right now the chickadees, nuthatches, and pine grosbeaks are gathered around the bird feeder outside my window, having a sunflower seed feeding frenzy. The beautiful red of the male grosbeaks are a perfect match for the Christmas music playing in the background (yes, I DO play Christmas music all of December!).

pine grosbeaks.Dec.2011.edited

*

If you want to read how badly things are going in Doha, head over to Joe Romm’s blog on Think Progress. This is today’s headline: As Global CO2 Emissions Rise, Scientists Warn 2-Degree Target Is Nearly Out Of Reach: ‘We Need A Radical Plan’. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s headline reads:  Carbon credits row could derail UN climate talks, says Brazil.  The Star, the only Canadian paper that tries to present a balanced approach to global warming, published “Heat-trapping Pollution On the Rise, Threatens Goal of Limiting Global Warming” . The article quotes Dr. Glen Peters from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway on the solution to global warming:

“The only way, Peters said, is to start reducing world emissions now and “throw everything we have at the problem.”

…Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria who was not part of the study, said: “We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem.”

The world needs radical lovers to address our spiritual and ecological crises, people who will throw everything they have at the problem.If not now, then when? The end of civilization as we know it is within sight; the oceans turn to acid,  the polar ice caps melt, western forests burn dry as kindling from native pests surviving in warmer and warmer winters, First Nations are poisoned by fish turned toxic by tar sands pollution.

I’m in for choosing life over the slow death of muffling my voice that wants to cry out in pain and anguish at what we are doing to our earth and to our children. I’m done with deadening the pain in my heart with distractions that society prefers me to busy myself with – tv, food, shopping, alcohol, sex, and so on. It will be a wild ride, but I’m in. And you?

Graphic: Credo Mobile

*

December 1st marked the day 57 years ago that  Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the white section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, sending out a spark that helped ignite the Civil Rights Movement. Her courage and conviction are an inspiration to us now, as we take on the “Great Work” of our generation.

photo: 350.org from Arab Youth Climate Movement
photo: 350.org from Arab Youth Climate Movement

*

And in case you were wondering, yes there are things we can do to make a difference for future generations; it is not too late: Four Reasons To Hope We Can Still Avert The Worst Impacts Of Climate Change.

Our Carbon Pollution: Is It Different From Raw Sewage?

In a very short time – years or at most decades – humans will look back at our spewing of carbon pollution into the atmosphere with the same disgust and disbelief that we now look back on people in the middle ages in Europe who dumped their raw sewage into the streets. Here’s a recent video that makes tangible the carbon emissions that New York City spews out every day:

[youtube=http://youtu.be/DtqSIplGXOA]

*

The good news is that Hurricane Sandy may have started a new discussion in the U.S. on climate change in general, and pricing carbon pollution in particular (sadly, in Canada we are lagging far behind. Our current federal government is intent on dragging us back into the 20th Century):

  • Speaking to Bloomberg News, oil and gas giant Exxon reiterated its support for a carbon tax yesterday. A spokeswoman for the company said that the tool could “play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions.” Click here to read full article.
  • The right wing American Enterprise Institute recently held a day-long conference on pricing carbon: Yesterday, the American Enterprise Institute hosted a conference to talk about anything and everything related to the economics of carbon taxes.  Normally, a full-day conference with more than a dozen speakers on a tax issue in DC will be lucky to get more than a few dozen attendees, even with a free lunch.  Carbon taxes, though, are different.  The enthusiasm for this issue is such that there were over 200 attendees, many of whom stood for half the day.

What makes carbon taxes different? Simply put, people across the political spectrum now know that putting a price on carbon is an indispensable tool for dealing with our climate and budget problems, and that a carbon tax is the most politically viable path forward.  This dynamic has created an exciting amount of momentum that now needs to be turned into policy. Read more on ThinkProgress.

  • This week, in an open letter, a coalition of the world’s largest investors (responsible for managing $22.5 trillion in assets) called on governments on Tuesday to ramp up action on climate change and boost clean-energy investment or risk trillions of dollars in investments and disruption to economies. They said rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions and more extreme weather were increasing investment risks globally.
  • The World Bank – now headed by a scientist, for the first time ever – released a report this week calling for urgent action on climate change. “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” warns we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.
  • On the good news front – the Tesla Model S won the 2013 Car of The Year award, the first electric car to win in the 60 year history of the award! Read more. Also under the heading of  “good news”, Harvard Students have voted to support their university’s divestment from the fossil fuel industry (read more).

It feels like we’re on the edge of a paradigm shift. What do you think?