Spirituality and Ecological Hope

Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:

[WARNING: this is a long article, perhaps for your weekend reading.]

Well, the terms of the debate over our future regarding global warming and energy are being set with ever greater clarity. It is a debate over our future, period — as in whether or not we have one and under what conditions.

Today, I just want to make a point or two about this, with linked articles to emphasize the point. For a long time, the discussion regarding global warming seemed to be a debate between the science and those who believe it, and, well, mostly a public vacuum, an empty space. On the other side were occasional blasts from the naysayers, many of them funded by the oil and natural gas industry, and their political and economic allies, but these blasts lacked substance and mostly consisted of a patronizing tone intended to make people think that global warming alarmists were either stupid or had a hidden agenda. But in the way of real conversation, debate over energy policy and the ecological crisis, well, not so much.

But thanks to Al Gore, continuing record warmth, huge unnatural natural disasters, the rising voices of the religious community and other cultural leaders, and the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the gloves have come off. Oil and gas corporate executives have begun to realize they have a problem and they are spending hugely — full page ads in journals like the NY Times and Wash. Post — press events, conferences, and more, to make the case for more oil and gas.

Their scare argument basically comes down to this: folks, oil, gas, and coal are the fuels for the world’s economy, for your entire way of life, and our energy demands are only going to increase exponentially in coming decades. If you don’t want to lose this way of life, don’t even think about things like mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or environmental controls on drilling and mining, or carbon taxes, or massive switches to alternative fuels.

They even try to prick our consciences by saying that more energy consumption is the only hope to reduce poverty in the world.

So check out this graph from the IPCC, with its projected emissions growth rate through 2100. And then think about how much we have warmed already, and the consequences already upon us. Then ask, how bad do we want this to get?

So, here’s some reading for the day. First, this article by the always fine analyst, Michael Klare, from Foreign Policy in Focus. It’s title, Global warming: it’s all about energy, describes his point — that when we talk about greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the heating of the planet, what we are really talking about is energy — how we get it, how we use it, how much we use it, how it supports nearly every aspect of our way of life. Therefore, the issue of how to reduce GHGs to the point where we can reverse the warming process is really a question about how we will consume energy in the future — which means, how we intend to live from this point on.

…carbon dioxide emissions constitute 84% of this nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, most – 98% – are emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, which currently provide approximately 86% of America’s total energy supply. This means that energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are highly correlated: the more energy we consume, the more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, and the more we contribute to the buildup of GHGs.

Because Americans show no inclination to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels – but rather are using more and more of them all the time – one can foresee no future reduction in U.S. emissions of GHGs. According to the DoE, the United States is projected to consume 35% more oil, coal, and gas combined in 2030 than in 2004; not surprisingly, the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to rise by approximately the same percentage over this period. If these projections prove accurate, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 will reach a staggering 8.1 billion metric tons, of which 42% will be generated through the consumption of oil (most of it in automobiles, vans, trucks, and buses), 40% by the burning of coal (principally to produce electricity), and the remainder by the combustion of natural gas (mainly for home heating and electricity generation). No other activity in the United States will come even close in terms of generating GHG emissions.

Wow, one can get a bit depressed with facts like that. Klare goes on to talk about our state of denial, that all this talk about planting trees and trading rights to emit carbon and all, will never get to the heart of the matter — which is that we have to stop emitting so much carbon, we have to stop consuming so much fossil fuel.

And while many folks, including our president, are pushing biofuel technology, the industry will remind us, and they are right on this point, that these fuels will never be able to replace the oil, natural gas and coal that we use, and are projected to use if demand continues to rise as expected. The industry response is to demand more rights for drilling, more access to foreign supplies, less regulation.

Poor, poor planet.

Meanwhile, on the other side are a growing number of policy-makers who are finally paying attention to the crisis. Many world leaders are already seeing the impacts of warming on their societies, and they are very worried. Lawmakers from 20 countries attended a forum on global warming in Washington DC this week, along with forward-thinking corporate leaders and policy experts, and they are calling on the G-8 countries to take up action to reduce carbon emissions at their next meeting in June. You can read about ithere, an article from the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, our own lawmakers, some of whom attended the forum, are starting to put together legislative initiatives. Sens. McCain and Lieberman are pushing legislation that would cap emissions and introduce a cap-and-trade regimen in the US. And over in the House, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has introduced legislation that he calls the Safe Climate Act (HR 5642). You can read about it here. There will be more to come. Congress is waking up.

I don’t often quote Sen. McCain, especially as I find his position on the Iraq war to be so morally bankrupt, but today I give him the final word:

“The debate is over, my friends. Now the question is what do we do? Do we act, do we care enough about the young people of the next generation to act seriously and meaningfully, or are we going to just continue this debate and this discussion?”

Global warming graph credit: Earth Policy Institute

[tags] global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, energy demands, carbon dioxide, cap and trade[/tags]