Global Warming After Gore

Global Warming After Gore
By Teryn Norris
Published: Alternet.org, Nov 10th

Al Gore's Nobel Prize was a momentous event we should all applaud. Now it is time to move on and get smart about the climate movement's next steps. First, we should deal with some of our own inconvenient truths: global warming continues to rank extremely low among voter priorities, and Congress is going nowhere fast. The question we should ask ourselves is, how can the climate movement retool its politics for the post-Gore era?

It is high time for global warming activists to leave behind their focus on the "planetary crisis" and the regulatory-centered agenda, and embrace an energetic and inspiring vision that captures people's minds, hearts and votes.

Despite last year's "tipping point" in public attitudes toward climate change, Pew polls find that it still ranks dead last among voter concerns. It is of little surprise, then, that the Washington Post ran a front-page article on recently titled "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats." Nor is it surprising that the best provisions of today's congressional energy bill would still allow U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to grow 22 percent by 2030, effectively making the recommendations of the world's leading scientists unattainable.

One of the most hopeful signs is young activists, who are already making the breakthroughs necessary to build an expansive climate movement. The Campus Climate Challenge has rapidly grown to include over 500 colleges and achieved hundreds of innovative clean energy policies across the country. Power Shift 2007, the first-ever national youth summit on global warming, drew 6,000 students to Washington, D.C., last weekend and featured guests ranging from Nancy Pelosi to Van Jones. Indeed, the youth movement is quickly becoming the largest and most influential student movement in nearly a half century.

How can young activists best capture the moment? Thomas Friedman offered some ideas in his recent op-ed, "Generation Q." He said that today's young adults are "too quiet, too online, for [their] own good, and for the country's own good." We've got to wake up, he said, and reform our tactics: "Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way -- by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall."

But Friedman is mistaken. It is easy to get nostalgic for the '60s, but the direction of today's youth movement must be profoundly different from that of the baby-boomer era. Vietnam was about stopping a war. Civil rights were about equalizing freedoms. The energy and climate movement, in contrast, is about creating an entirely new clean energy economy -- a fundamentally different undertaking that requires us to transcend the models of the past.

The "old-fashioned" tactics of protest, demand and complaint just aren't enough. Global warming is one of the most complex challenges the world has ever faced, vastly different from those of the 1960s. It calls upon us to innovate, politically and economically, at an unprecedented scale. Our politics must be retooled, not only to achieve immediate policy changes but to create new and lasting political majorities. And instead of constraining our economy, we need to unleash it, driving our engineers, scientists and manufacturers to hone their skills and knowledge, and put these forces to work toward building the next energy economy.

A powerful climate movement -- one capable of capturing the public imagination, defining new political identities and fully unleashing our economy -- should put forth an even stronger vision of American greatness than the neoconservatives once offered. It must tap the optimism and can-do spirit embedded in our nation's history that has driven us to overcome the daunting crises of the past. "A new story of American Power begins by acknowledging what our country is great at: imagining, experimenting and inventing the future," argue Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, authors of Break Through. "First we dream -- and then we invent."

An "American Power" program would advance a massive public investment project -- $300 billion to $500 billion -- to develop and deploy clean energy technology, revitalize the economy, achieve energy independence and create millions of new jobs. Its politics would thus begin from a position of strength -- innovation, economic growth and national security -- speaking to the aspirations and securities that we all value as our birthright. And it would renew America's global leadership by dedicating us to responsible energy use and creating drastically cheaper forms of clean technology for the developing world.

The opportunity for such a resounding vision couldn't be greater. The failure of the Iraq War and the collapse of the Bush presidency have left the American public hungry for an inspiring message that gives us new direction. Redefining American greatness around our inventiveness can unite us behind a common purpose, invigorating us to unleash our forces of innovation.

Today the climate movement faces a choice. As it begins to emerge from the margins of the national debate, it can revitalize itself to become potent and expansive, or it can continue to define itself by an old-fashioned activism. Whether the movement will fully seize the moment is uncertain. But one thing is clear: Young people must begin advancing a new politics if we are to overcome this challenge and achieve a more secure and prosperous future.

Comments

@Peter: Thanks for the comment. I'm glad you hold Breakthrough Institute to a high standard, which we appreciate.

We're actually nearing completion on a comprehensive review of the current state of the art in analysis, modeling, and empirical research into the rebound effect, so stay tuned in January for a very detailed look at this key issue.

You are right that rebound effects do not always eliminate 100% of the energy gains from energy efficiency measures -- a scenario known as "backfire." As you note, however, rebound effects are very real, and have been largely ignored in contemporary energy policymaking. Rebound effects at macroeconomic scales are quite significant, and backfire is even likely in certain circumstances.

To date, most American energy analysts will argue that rebound effects are "real but not significant" and often cite a range of 10-30% as the amount of efficiency savings "taken back" by rebound effects.

Those figures however trace their origin back to a good but limited study of energy consumption rebound among consumers in wealthy countries -- but these are precisely the scope of analysis and sectors of the economy where rebound would be lowest.

Two-thirds of global energy use is in the productive sectors of the economy (industry and business) and there, direct rebounds are typically much larger. Meanwhile, greater and greater shares of energy consumption are in the developing economies, where rebound is also greater, as demand for energy is far from saturated there, and improving the productivity of energy has profound impacts for the pace of economic expansion.

Studies of these micro-scale (or "direct") rebound effects are useful, but efficiency advocates in the U.S. have latched onto this limited research, which (intentionally or unintentionally) distracts attention from macro-rebound, indirect rebound and rebounds in developing nations.

Remember, for Jevons, his focus was on the macroeconomic impacts that are most important, and this was all intuitive. Increase the productivity of any factor and you increase both demand for all factors as well as economic output.

Now, 150 years later, as we consider the ability of efficiency to deliver lasting emissions reductions at a global scale, a growing body of research utilizing a variety of empirical, modeling, and economic methods have shed new light on these complex macroeconomic dynamics in which full-scale rebound resides, and in which the the scale of rebound does indeed become very significant.

And let's all remember, that the only scope that really matters from a climate perspective is the full scale of rebound in the global economy (e.g. one climate, one global economy).

Rebound effects are thus far more significant at this scale of analysis than generally believed, and while Owen may miss the mark once or twice, he is more right than not in his article, and worth reading closely. Stay tuned though for the kind of "nuanced analysis" on the rebound effect you've been looking for in early 2011. Take care,

Jesse Jenkins
Director of Energy and Climate Policy
Breakthrough Institute

By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 12 23

Obama should start from scratch, and look for smart, strategic investments that can solve our short-term woes while creating an economy that's built to last. Obama is the best President

By nowgoogle.com adalah multiple search engine popular on 2010 03 17

Credit cards and loan lenders contribute greatly on financial situation of our country. That is why the government wanted banks to keep afloat and hold on until the economic crisis subsides. However, the bank stress tests that will say the ability of the bank to survive have been leaked, albeit in incomplete form. The bank stress tests indicate that the largest banks, all of which received large installment loans from the taxpayers, are still heavily leveraged and still run a huge risk of collapse. The source isn't exactly known for its journalistic integrity or anything resembling something positive. The leak comes from the Turner Radio Network, run by Hal Turner, a radio show host and blogger who is closely tied to the white supremacist movement and is a Holocaust denier (a crime in Germany and Austria). Regardless of the dubious nature of the source, the listed companies on the bank stress tests still need debt relief.

By payday loan on 2009 04 25

Economy dictates politics for whoever will be the answer for economic crisis might win and have the precious seat at the White House maybe. Politics and economy are the two complicated aspects that most of us even bothered to be in. But now that economy hasn

By Economy on 2009 04 08

Politics and economy are the two most complicated aspects of a country. Economy dictates politics for whoever will be the answer for economic crisis might win and have the precious seat at the White House maybe. But now that economy hasn

By Tony S. on 2009 04 08

I wish our new President the very best. I defiantly felt he was the best person of the job. He prepared himself since he was a teenage for this position by attending the very best schools and universities. I strongly believe in the vast majority of his policies. It is just too bad that he is forced to start in such a bad position, thanks to our last president, the worst one we have ever had in my life time.

By FX on 2009 03 29

You already knew the Center for Responsible Lending was awesome. But you probably don't realize how awesome. Let's just say there is a reason why North Carolina leads the nation in consumer protection against predatory lending. Dean Starkman, a respected journalist, has jumped on the anti payday loans bandwagon. A recent article by Dean Starkman came out in ardent defense of Martin Eakes, head of the Center for Responsible Lending, citing all the good work the organization is doing to curb subprime lending and all predatory lending practices. While this would be admirable if all things were equal, the Center for Responsible Lending campaigned in favor of the mortgage industry increasing loans to high risk borrowers, which naturally came with terms that weren

By Darin H. on 2009 03 10

When the largest environmental groups are controlled by Chlorox bleachmen and PG&E, what chance? The environmental focus needs to be on environmental sustainability policy, regardless of who is chosen.

See the discussion at www.onebiosphere.com If the environmental "activists" are controlled by big business, where is the hope?

By Charles Warren on 2008 11 10

You have to be kidding - almost 1/2 the votes were against him.

By Colin Suttie on 2008 11 06

Barney Frank was one of the architects of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies that precipitated this melt down and then he was one of the architects of the bail out debacle(google: Barney Frank Architect Bail Out). His hearings will be yet another exercise in deflecting blame away from his serial incompetence and away from all the money he took from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This mess is what government intervening in a market looks like. That's something to think about when are thinking about who should do what to roll out alternative energy.

By Robert www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 11 01