Environmental death watch
Who is responsible for curbing global warming?
By Lorna Salzman
EcoAction Committee


Cartoon by Stephanie McMillan from www.minimumsecurity.net 

Who is to bear the prime responsibility for curbing global warming: government, industry and business, energy producers and distributors, or consumers?

You will not be surprised to learn most of the leading American environmental groups involved in the global warming issue target only the first three of these. Only a few groups are calling for ending fossil and nuclear subsidies, and tax breaks. Only three groups, besides the U.S. Green Party, are explicitly calling for taxes on carbon emitting fuels. The major national groups have essentially abandoned the fight altogether.

Unfortunately, according to the Insti­tute for Public Policy and other sources, the atmosphere is approaching a 2°C increase in average global temperature above the level in 1750 because of the drastic acceleration in demand for fossil fuel - over 12 percent since 1991, with no end in sight. As a result, most scientists now say we probably have ten years at most before the tipping point is reached, and that minimally, the world needs to reduce its fossil fuel consumption by at least 80 percent over the next ten years.

In other words, to avoid the onset of irreversible damage from global warming, we need to stabilize fossil fuel use at its present level now, given the fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) from the past remains in the atmosphere for at least one hundred years.

There are only two such immediate solutions with any meaningful impact: mandatory reductions in energy use (rationing, limiting supplies, severe restrictions on cars, restrictions on power plant operation and emissions), or an economic solution: raising the price of energy through carbon taxes on fossil fuels. Both may be needed. There is no way we can succeed without consumers bearing their share of the burden. Accompanying carbon taxes must be the termination of federal tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, which would be an important first step in full-cost pricing of energy.

But looking at the policies and proposals of the major environmental groups on solving the global warming/energy crises, we see consumers are not expected to be more than a minor part of the solution. All the groups support efficiency and renewable energy; few of them propose actual mechanisms to accomplish their goals. And the importance of reducing consumer demand is not acknowledged. Untaxed airline fuel that allows us to fly to Europe for under $200 dollars is responsible for about 4 percent of present greenhouse gas emissions and at the present level of use will reach 15 percent by 2050 if it remains unchecked. This un­­taxed fuel also allows us to consume a dollar-a-pound fruit flown in from South America.

The stated objective of both government and energy producers is to stabilize energy prices so as to "not choke off demand." In the marketplace demand is profits. A truly free energy marketplace - ending subsidies and tax breaks and properly pricing energy - would penalize fossil fuel energy producers and greatly stimulate renewable energy development and installation, which in turn would continue to reduce demand for fossil fuels. The existing fossil fuel industry will resist a real free market, carbon taxes, and full-cost pricing in its peculiar alliance with consumers to promote "low" oil prices.

Furthermore, free markets are undercut by monopoly, price fixing, cartels, collusion, corruption, and manipulation - all made possible by a lack of oversight and regulation, as witness the Wall Street scandals. Even the loudly touted deregulation of the electric sector that was intended to spur competition and lower prices has failed due to collusion and deliberate withholding of electric supply in order to elevate prices.

Globally, the expansion of fossil fuel consumption in China, India and Russia will mean not only competition for oil and gas supplies but higher prices due to such competition. This will stimulate industry demand for more oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, but in turn this will accelerate depletion and bring on "peak oil" with even higher prices as known reserves are depleted. The inevitable increase in oil and gas prices will force fossil fuel companies to demand continued tax breaks and subsidies for exploration and enhanced production, in order to stabilize prices and maintain consumer demand.

Unless we act now, the status quo will push us into a purely defensive mode to minimize the damage from sea level rise, Gulf Stream reversal, loss of wetlands and estuaries, contamination of fresh water aquifers, loss of crucial infrastructure, influx of tropical disease-bearing vectors, crop failures, and loss of biodiversity. Given these dire and certain consequences - some of which are already visible in the Arctic communities - one marvels at our collective failure to take actions commensurate with the threat.

Proposed Actions

Below is a brief comparison of leading environmental organizations' proposed mechanisms for curbing global warming and reforming energy policy:

U.S. Green Party Eco Action Com­mit­tee: Carbon taxes, full-cost pricing of energy, end to all fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies and tax breaks, tax incentives for renewable energy, reforestation, export of renewable energy technologies, rejection of nuclear, coal power and of biofuels from food crops, stringent global CO2 emissions limits based on preventing any rise in average global temperature, reduction of CO2 emissions by 80 percent within ten years.

Friends of the Earth USA: Terminating subsidies to big oil, fossil fuels, nuclear industry, SUVs and Hum­mers. Sustain­able Energy and Economy Network (an independent project of the Institute for Policy Studies): Terminating tax breaks and subsidies to fossil fuels.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): No call to end federal tax breaks or subsidies for fossil or nuclear energy. NRDC should be commended for its blunt assessment of what a "Business as Usual" (BAU) scenario will look like, and it isn't pretty. By 2030 it would include: 1400 gigawatts of new coal plants, over 2000 GW of natural gas plants; over 200 GW of oil plants, growth in primary energy consumption by 6088 million tons oil-equivalent consumption - from 9179 in 2000 to 15,267 in 2030, with 91 percent of this increase from fossil fuels. BAU means we will rapidly exceed the 450-ppm "limit" of CO2 sought for this century. 

Sierra Club, Sustainable Energy Net­work, and Apollo Alliance: Have not yet called for an end to fossil or nuclear energy tax breaks.

Environmental Defense: No longer a major environmental player regarding SUVs and Hummers: "Dr. Bill" says, "You don't have to stop driving them."

Climate Crisis Coalition: Proposes transfer of fossil and nuclear subsidies to renewable energy, supports carbon taxes as a substitute for other taxes such as Social Security and Medicare.

Climate Action Network International: Legislate mandatory CO2 emissions reduction targets.

----------

Back to Winter 2007