It's not like sulfur or mercury where the emission itself is directly harmful to humans.

-David Ahlport

   To clarify further, one of the concerns is that under a cap and trade system, pollution would be locked in place in poor neighborhoods as long as some remediation took place somewhere else.  This sound good for somewhere else, but not for those suffering under the "bought" permits.

   Interestingly, if you explore their web site, they include a quote from Grist!

patrick in Beijing
   

Yes indeed, we all need to work together, because we are all on the same side.

And suggestions to the contrary are delusions.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

How does buying carbon credits mean that a power plant gets to increase their sulfur/mercury emissions?

You don't get to ignore the rest of the clean air act just because of carbon emissions.

-David Ahlport

Both insist that cap and trade is essentially a tax, and very harmful to the poor.

Both would love to see the Dems commit themselves to pie in the sky that can never pass.

Together, Grist and Inhofe will prevail.  No legislation will pass.

        If there is a power plant that currently is producing emissions that threaten the health of a poor neighborhood (nearby) but within the greater measured area does not violate the clean air act, under a cap and trade plan, people feel it would be allowed to continue to produce emissions that threaten the health of the poor neighborhood.

        One of the problems with air pollution is that it isn't spread evenly across the areas that are measured to determine verification with laws such as the clean air act.

        For instance, pollution from cars tends to be most concentrated in areas nearest highways in urban areas.  These areas are mostly inhabited by the poor.  Traditionally, for many environmental groups, this has not been a major issue.  For EJ groups, it is.

        This is true generally of pollution and toxics.  While they harm everyone, they especially harm the poor (who are often people of color in urban areas, though not exclusively).  

        A cap and trade system at the least would allow this to continue, at the worst, would allow conditions to get worse in poor areas.

        So, that's how it works.

  Dear Ce1907,

      You often complain that real politics means we don't get the legislation environmentalists call for, so we should settle for what we can get.

      But you are missing the point, as you note, unless we are willing to sacrifice the poor, we can't get the legislation you favor.  And many of us are not willing to do this.

      I am not sure it is your intention, but the results of what you are advocating would be that "we" have to always give in, and "they" never have to give in.  Sorry, no deal.

      For legislation to pass, it has to be acceptable to everyone, or we go nowhere.  Poor people who are suffering feel that they have already surrendered too much.  The other side doesn't seem to be suffering much at all.

patrick in Beijing

Simply give a 10 cent per kwh subsidy for renewable energy from solar panels on people's homes.  And other renewable sources, like farm biogas and wind.  And give 5 cent per kwh subsidy for conservation.

Raise the money by canceling subsidies for big energy and agribizz fuel farming.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Your views are consistent, and I respect that.  But in my view, you are missing a key point.  The poor will be hurt by climate change.

Stopping, slowing, starting to slow climate change is an over-riding crisis -- or not.  

If it climate is the true crisis, then it is THE priority -- and my position is stronger.  If not, then your position is stronger.

Once you reach a decision that climate change is very, very scary, and very, very bad for everyone (my hysterical view), then you have to take a steely look at the votes.

Starting in the Senate, where the action is for the moment (and until Dingell leaves office), there is no support for tax and rebate.  No support for cap and trade (100% auction) and rebate.  No support for turning the economy or the social order on its head.

I don't mean that there are not 60 votes.  I don't mean that there are not 40 votes.

There are not 10 votes.

If progressives win a decade of elections, then it will be 2020 and I doubt you will be to 20 votes.

To insist upon such a program is to simply take yourself out of the game.  And to deny support to the far left of the Senate -- which, sadly, is still on the right.

But do not take my word for it.  Get Sen. Sanders to introduce the Grist bill -- tax and rebate.  See how many co-sponsors he gets.

In the trade press today, there are rumblings about backroom maneuverings to insert the Bingaman "safety valve," or similar, into the L-W bill, to weaken it.

That is the game.  That is the fight.  But Grist stays nobly above that fray, offers no support to the Left (such as it is), and insists upon attacking L-W.

Inhofe wins.

Amazn.  Nice idea.  Get it introduced.

A real game is being played, guys.  Can we afford to ignore reality on Capitol Hill on this issue?

I wish we could.

      You are correct in your description of where we are today.  However, I disagree with your discription of how we get change.

      Most senators care about their jobs, number 1.  If they see the public moving on an issue, they will move too.  That's how we get Republicans to vote for an expansion of Medicaid.  It's not because of their great love for expanding government involvement in medicine, it's because the people have moved, and they don't want to be voted out of office.

     (Somewhere today (I didn't keep note of it, sorry), I read an article about political consultants explaining to Republican members of Congress that some form of National Health Insurance was coming, and they needed to get on board, the climate had changed).

     To get the votes, we need to organize the people.  As pressure builds, the congress will move.  It won't take 20 years.

      How to organize that kind of pressure?  We need to get away from the "insider" game that most environmental organizations play.  This is the game of lobbying discreetly members of Congress and their staff, relying on their willingness to listen and do the right thing when we show them what it is.

      Rather we need to organize masses of people.  This can be done at a grassroots level, or by building broad based coalitions for change.  

      Politicians look at Obama, and see a desire for change.  For one thing, we should ride that wave.  And try to steer our part of it (grin).

      If we succeed, Senators who won't give us the time of day will be claiming credit for our ideas.  If we fail, we suffer.

      The insider game is not giving us good results, we need to move outside and organize.

patrick in Beijing

it is not a high enough priority for the public

hell, even an immediate problem like the war has found an only partial response

also, you underestimate the potential for rightwing spin, and the willingness to accept rightwing spin

there is a tremendous advantage to having a few "moderate" (scared) Repubs on board the charter voyage of climate legislation.  Pulls the teeth out of a lot of partisan scare tactics

And that is assuming that the public will quickly rally around your tax and rebate approach.  Highly unlikely

sorry, my friend, there is the incremental option and the no action option

Grist and Inhofe united means no action

So I'm confused.  Is EJ's opposition to pollution trading an opposition of carbon trading?  If so, it seems pretty nonsensical.

There's no such thing as a carbon hot spot.  If they were talking about mercury or some other heavy metals, then they have a point... but I don't think they are.

It's not enough just to say they probably will.  The underlying assumption here is that power plants in more affluent areas (if there are any) must have lower marginal costs for abating CO2 than those in the poorer areas.

I'd like to see some proof of that, otherwise this is all just conjecture.

Trading carbon permits won't allow plants to start releasing more of the other pollutants (mercury, sulphur, etc.) into the atmosphere than they already are.  

So the problems caused by those pollutants are already there - they won't be caused by a carbon trading program.

Now, how do we get a mass movement going?  The big enviros are very good at lobbying and following their members, or perhaps gingerly trying to push their members a bit.  If you google "Ted Glick" (and here's his group), you'll see an attempt to build a mass movement.  But it virtually has to be created at the moment -- there's also Step It Up, and Focus the Nation just happened.

But that is the reality of the situation.  It's a democracy, after all, the people will have to push the legislators, not the other way around.

That's why I think the simple subsidy plan of 10 cents per kwh for renewables and 5 cents per kwh for conservation is the best.

It is easy to explain to politicians and the voters.  Voters will get checks.  Hedge fund traders will not be involved.

Can the opposition of lobbyists be overcome though?  We need our own lobby for this, a mega lobby consisting of all the other green and real USA job related lobbies.  

Unions, groups like NRDC, and other eco groups need to be convionced by someone like Gore and Lester Brown and some of the grist writers of influence, like Romm and others.  Maybe an aticle series started off by a famous guest writer like Lovins?

And Brown and maybe even Gore continuing as the bandwagon rolls. A mega green lobby of lobbies to push this one very simple idea:

10 cents per kwh, and 5 cents, checks directly to homeowners.  The whole program payed for by stopping 50 billion per year in subsidies to big oil, coal, nuclear, and agribizzz.

Forget political will on raising taxes with a carbon tax or capping and trading or auctioning or rebating.  It's all too complex to explain and problematic with hedge funds getting their filthy fingers in the pie.

But we have to fight lobbying for these other plans with a mega green lobby.  Junketing congress around to view the green solutions, all that stuff.  Congress needs photo ops (for campaigning)to show they are doing something, and legislation to back that up.

A mega green lobby could help with both of those.  I bet gore and others are already on this.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

However, opposing the carbon trading on these grounds is quite indirect.  If it's mercury, etc. you're worried about - spend your resources trying to get those limits tightened.

        Look at where the plants are NOW!  They are not in middle class or wealthy areas.  They are in or next to poor areas.  That is why this is an issue.  Gar is correct (though I am sorry to hear about his respiratory problems).

        BTW, if you think that the plants are really no problem, go out door to door where you live and lobby your neighbors to get one put in your neighborhood (umm, you may need to move to a new location afterwards!).  Reality Check!

    Dear Ce1907,

         The idea that there is the incremental approach or no-change approach is a common fallacy.  I remember people saying the same thing during the civil rights movement.  But, oops, they were wrong.  (When I was young in the South, moderate white folks used to suggest that things would get better by and by and that people should be happy with some small changes.)

         Jon Rynn is absolutely correct!!  It is the mass movements that put the pressure on Congress.  Do we have one now?  No!!  So, the solution is not to say that one is not possible, but to organize!!  (Don't moan, organize!! (apologies to the lady)).

         I don't underestimate anything, the question is whether people fight, or go along.  Going along we get a bad bill.  Fight?  I believe we can do better.

         There is tremendous energy being harnessed around the Obama and Clinton campaigns (even though she is losing, she still gets huge crowds).  Change is in the air, now is the time to strike!

         How about a "Greens for Obama"? (or Clinton).  People showing up at rallies carrying signs that say "Save the Earth!  Stop Global Warming!  Obama 2008" or anything else.  Put that message into the campaign.  Even though he is weak on some issues, the signs are that he "gets" it at a macro-level (okay, wishful thinking).

         We do not have only two choices, we have many choices, we need to step outside the box and look for fresh approaches!

patrick in Beijing

As you know, if you think about if for a minute, the world is chaotic, and there are always lots of things going on.  Interests and opinions converge, diverge, personalities come in and out.

So pls do not suggest that we just need to sit back and wait for the genius of tax and rebate to sink into the popular consciousness, turn into a social movement, and promptly make Congress do the right thing.  You know better.

Everybody knows better.

We are at a particular moment for various reasons.  First, scary, visible things are happening in the Arctic, and scientists have organized to bitch about it.  Second, the Euros have done a dry run, and make regulation seem possible.  Third, many large corps made big bucks in Europe and want to repeat the killing here -- thus organizations supporting climate legislation.  Fourth, AB32 in CA makes reg seem possible in America.  Fifth, Gore has won awards.  Sixth, Congressmen have climbed all over each other trying to soak in the publicity associated with climate issues, holding many hearings, causing more publicity.  Seventh, Sen. Warner decided to break ranks with Repubs, give a bipartisan air to a prominent climate bill, and pull a few Repubs to the cause of climate change.

For these reasons, and a few more, there is an opportunity for meaningful votes in the Senate.  An important measure that will make senators commit to things.  It advances the debate, and makes a law closer.

The issue is whether to engage in this process, or to shun it, and opt out for the longterm, progressive goals of social and political revolution followed by election success followed by a "true" climate bill in a hundred years.

How much time do we have?  How long can we wait?

We must try to take all the political actors and maneuver them to the world's best advantage immediately.

Or we can do nothing and stay pure in our dreams.

    Dear Ce1907,

       No one is advocating sitting back and doing nothing.  No one wants to wait for the public to discover the problems and solutions.

       What people are talking about is organizing.  Building mass support by talking to people.  One of the reasons people don't understand the problem is that too many environmentalists play the Washington insider game, and leave the public communication to the right wing and corporations.

      The reason the public doesn't get it, is because we haven't told them.  Not really, not effectively.  And no, an annual earth day fair isn't enough.

      It's about doing the really hard work of building public organizations and support.  But it can be done.

      The insider game is a dead end, that's what got us in this mess.

patrick in Beijing

But I still think that part of the public discussion has to include more "radical" approaches, in the sense of faster adoption of global warming proposals, we can walk and chew gum at the same time here, it won't scare people away.

The tax and rebate noise is destructive because it echoes many of Inhofe's talking points about cap and trade.  

Also destructive because it convinces wary pols that there is no upside to serious action regarding climate.  Left will shoot them in the neck no matter what they do.  Better to talk pious and avoid votes.

Progress will be made, IF it is made, only by tough and adroit maneuvers by the dreaded insiders.

Join the game as it is actually being played this year.  Support the people trying to do the best we can do in the near term.  There are a couple people like that -- not that many, but a few.

The underlying assumption here is that power plants in more affluent areas (if there are any) must have lower marginal costs for abating CO2 than those in the poorer areas.

So moving forward: Since most power plants are located in less affluent areas, carbon trading means that emissions are going to be reduced in some poor areas while possibly increased in others.  But it's not the carbon that EJ or you seem to be worried about, it's the other pollutants.  So I ask: if your main concern is the directly harmful pollutants, why not focus on getting those limits tightened rather than indirectly addressing the issue by opposing carbon trading?

Here in my neighborhood, middle class, I'd imagine a gas turbine plant's pollution would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cars, yard equipment and wood fireplaces.

Examples do matter to people.  If there is a problem, please concretely demonstrate it.

On another note, the people advocating a simple tax or subsidies haven't addressed the issue that neither of these mechanisms provide an assured level of progress on emissions reductions.  With scientists such as Hansen now saying we've likely already passed the "safe" level for atmospheric CO2 and must reduce emissions far quicker than previously thought, it seems unlikely setting a tax and then progressively adjusting to try to achieve the desired result will meet the challenge.

        The EJ statement opposes any plan that "further deepens entrenched social inequalities, irresponsible development trends, inadequate hazard reduction policies,".  This means that locking the current system into place is a no go.  To say that "carbon trading means that emissions are going to be reduced in some poor areas while possibly increased in others." and then suggest we just keep moving (I would not call it moving forward!!) misses the point.  The current situation is not acceptable.  Any system that fails to recognize this means that current inequities be accepted.  This is not acceptable.

        You suggest that EJ groups ignore cap and trade and just concentrate on mecury and other pollutants.  

        Hmmm, why not include the concerns of EJ groups in the Cap and Trade plans??  (not that this would solve all the problems.)

        You should go read the whole statement that David references in his post, there are a number of issues addressed there (I did not copy the statement, but have been merely clarifying some parts of it).

        Power plants are in poor communities because wealthy and middle class communities don't want them nearby, and have the power to move them to poor communities.  

       Cap and trade gives the right to continue to pollute "free" of charge to those large corporations that are already acting irresponsibly.  Why anyone should advocate such a system is not clear.  Why do we want to reward companies that have created the problems?

        The EJ statement calls for money to be invested in renewables among other things.

        Under cap and trade, the big polluters get something for nothing (they have to buy more something if they want it), but the only thing the poor get (though it may be free) is screwed again.

patrick in Beijing

   Dear PJD,

      Here are some links to a few of the web articles about EJ that include discussion of powerplants.  Keep in mind that the EJ movement is decentralized, and no one speaks for everyone, nor does everyone speak always in the exact same voice.  But also be aware, that most people share the same general principles.  I think that if you read some of the discussion links you will get a better feel for what folks are thinking than I can type here (smile).
The links are just a few, and not listed in any particular order.

http://www.gbgm-umc.org/NCNYEnvironmentalJustice/ej_artic ...

http://www.environmental-justice.org/nhejn/current_projec ...

http://www.energyjustice.net/ej/energy-ej.pdf

http://www.apen4ej.org/issues_what.htm

http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/2007-Se ...

http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/NBEJNEJFS.html

   Happy Reading!!!

patrick in Beijing