Going Green

This article appeared in the May 7, 2007 edition of The Nation.

April 19, 2007

Everyone knows it--even, probably, those who continue to deny it: Climate change threatens the future of the planet. A few simple facts tell the story. Even 125,000 years ago, during the last period of significant global warming, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) were not as high as they are today. Yet sea levels were much higher, about thirteen to nineteen feet above today's levels. Much of what is now New York, London and Shanghai was under water. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--a collection of more than 2,000 climate scientists and government representatives from around the world--has declared with virtual certainty that global warming caused by fossil fuel-based industrialization is upon us. Even if the world economy collapsed tomorrow and all CO2 emissions suddenly stopped, the earth would see several more decades of global warming because of the amount of CO2 already released. The challenge now is to stop runaway global warming: the process by which the effects of climate change "feed back" to compound the original problem in a vicious cycle that culminates in radically rising sea levels, mass drought, aquatic extinctions and social breakdown as the major cities of the world are overwhelmed by water, refugees and violence.

Because the scientific debate about global warming has been settled, this issue of The Nation focuses on how we should respond. How do we mitigate the crisis--i.e., make the rapid and radical shift away from fossil fuels so as to avoid runaway climate change? At the same time, how do we adapt to the changes in our climate that are already inevitable? The point is to grapple with the political economy of mitigation and adaptation--processes that pose distinct yet interrelated political and economic challenges. Consider, for example, the "climate divide": The rich countries are disproportionately responsible for causing global warming, but it is the poor countries of the world that will suffer the most from the changes in store. This inequity has given rise to calls for climate reparations, in which wealthy nations subsidize the process of adaptation in places facing imminent peril, like Bangladesh.

At the same time, developed countries like the United States bear a special responsibility for mitigating the climate crisis. Americans are 4 percent of the world's population, but we release 25 percent of all greenhouse gases. If we see the upper limit of atmospheric carbon stabilization at 400 to 450 parts per million, at which level the mean atmospheric temperature would be 3.6 Fahrenheit degrees higher than now, the heavy polluters of the world--the United States, the European Union, Japan and now China and India--need to reduce emissions by as much as 80 percent. That will require a massive effort. The Kyoto Protocol, widely viewed as inadequate, expires in 2012 and must be replaced by a far more stringent successor agreement. For its part, Europe has tightened its carbon reduction targets to 20 percent by 2020. In the United States, legislative proposals by Henry Waxman in the House and Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer in the Senate set the necessarily ambitious goal: 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions from their 1990 levels by 2050. To meet such targets, we'll have to discourage emissions by putting a price on polluting gases like methane and carbon. The best way to do that is through taxation, which would be offset by tax breaks to soften the impact on poor and middle-class households and to encourage green job growth and investment. But such ideas face formidable resistance from a political establishment beholden to entrenched interests--the oil and coal industries--that stand to lose out. Those industries have sunk billions of dollars in investments that would depreciate in value if real carbon reduction targets were achieved. Thus, they fight tooth and nail with lies and canards to keep things as they are.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» The Notion

Hillary's Big Ethics Problem: Bill | The story of Bill Clinton and his Kazakh uranium deal suggests that some guidelines are needed.
Jon Wiener

» State of Change

It's 3 a.m., Hillary's on the Phone | It looks like Clinton will be the Secretary of State.
John Nichols

» Capitolism

Left Out | Would it kill Obama to have an actual progressive or two in his cabinet?
Christopher Hayes

» The Beat

Key Committee Pick Signals Obama-Pelosi Direction | Waxman gets Commerce chair, amid signs of focus on healthcare, environment, consumer protection.
John Nichols

» The Dreyfuss Report

That Iranian "Bomb"? Relax. | Obama has lots and lots of time to deal with this problem carefully and rationally.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Passing Through

Should GM Survive? A Wall Street Analyst's View | Maybe they should just let it die.
Jane Hamsher

» Act Now!

Take the Joe Lieberman Pledge | In America, it's never too early to start preparing for the next election.
Peter Rothberg

» Editor's Cut

Smart Defense | Rep. Barney Frank is leading the charge to end the Pentagon's weapons spending spree. Is anybody listening?
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» And Another Thing

Election Updates --Good News and Not | Details on some ongoing stories
Katha Pollitt