The article that ran last month about ocean
acidification, and how it is disproportionately affecting our own
California coast, was deeply distressing to me. While I certainly don’t
make my living from the ocean, my devotion to it extends far beyond my
love of seafood. Even if I only put my feet into the Pacific three or
four times per year, it’s always a homecoming. The idea that our ocean
is sick and getting sicker because of human-caused climate change is
unbearable.
We’ve looked to our precious ocean to absorb the
consequences of our poor stewardship for long enough. As Osborne was
quoted in the article, “There’s no question that the answer is to curb
our emissions.” We must start that process by passing H.R. 763, the
Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This resolution is the real
deal. Even at this late date, it offers a chance to set us on the path
to a livable future, on land and in the water. Take care of your ocean
by supporting this critical piece of legislation.
Rebecca Paterson, Three Rivers
January 26, 2020
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article239609873.html
Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article239609873.html#storylink=cpy
Drastic changes are needed if California is to win the climate-change challenge
By Kevin Hall
When Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered his keynote speech
at the recent California Economic Summit
in Fresno, he failed to say two keywords: climate change. Conversely, he
said a lot about our economy while at a climate change summit held in New York
just weeks earlier:
“The [California] economy is growing; a fully
functioning cap-and-trade program; the most audacious low-carbon green growth
goals in the United States of America. There’s nothing left for me to sign —
it’s 100 percent across the board, in every category,” he boasted at Climate
Week NYC held in support of the U.N. Climate Action Summit in late
September.
Speaking on the eve of wildfire season, Newsom seemed
to be tempting fate itself. Conflagrations were soon exploding around the state
as if an invading armada were shelling it: Sandalwood, Caples, Saddleridge,
Kincade, Tick, Getty, Easy. People fled for their lives — some died — in war
zones of flame, smoke, sirens, panic and confusion.
And if Newsom needed another call to arms, two days
before the first wildfire hit, San Francisco-based nonprofit think tank Next 10
issued its 11th annual California Green Innovation Index. The report warns,
“California will meet its 2030 climate targets more than three decades late —
2061... if the average rate of emissions reductions from the past year holds
steady.”
But California and the world must cut emissions by
half before 2030. If not, tipping points will be crossed that set in motion
irreversible, ever-increasing releases of naturally stored carbon and methane,
according to the October U.N. report on a 1.5 C increase in global average
temperature.
Yet there stood Newsom in Fresno on Nov. 8, one year
after the Camp Fire, the deadliest, most destructive fire in state history with
at least 85 victims, talking about the state’s economy without once mentioning
climate change.
When pressed by The Bee and KFCF radio afterwards,
Newsom explained California is now in the implementation phase of its climate
change response, echoing his New York remarks.
Indeed we are.
California’s cap-and-trade program, dominated by oil
and gas interests, encompasses 450 businesses emitting 85% of the state’s
greenhouse gases and along with two Canadian provinces comprises the world’s
fourth largest exchange for carbon credits. Since 2013 it has generated $11.9
billion for reduction efforts.
High speed rail has received a fifth so far — $2.5
billion — but the concrete-intensive project will never offset its carbon
footprint, and its construction spews asthma-irritating dust and cancer-causing
diesel exhaust continually on West Fresno residents already hard hit by
industrial polluters.
Another $2.2 billion has gone toward low carbon
transportation. Primarily for alternative fuel programs, these largely serve to
extend dependence on fossil fuels and combustion technologies. For example, more
than $800 million is slated for a dairy methane program best described as the
HSR of agriculture: it offers dubious benefits but negatively impacts vulnerable
rural communities, according to an April working paper from Fresno-based
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability.
Finally, in late September the state Air Resources
Board approved the California Tropical Forest Standard, a potential carbon
credit source for fossil fuel companies, over the objections of indigenous
opponents from around the world who decried the move as “carbon colonization” of
their natural resources.
Newsom must address these policies’ shortcomings head
on. Because, as the Next 10 report lays bare, cap-and-trade and other
market-based solutions won’t work in time. They have not worked in time.
Unfortunately, Newsom and the rest of his generation
now in power came of age in an era of market-as-solution, government-as-problem
philosophy. Since the 1980s, most California politicians have drunk deeply from
that Reagan-with-a-twist-of-Clinton policy cocktail; with it comes considerable
financial backing from industry, particularly oil and gas extractors.
Consequently, the state government’s climate change
programs are rooted in outdated strategies warped by fossil fuel lobbyists like
former state legislators Henry T. Perea of Fresno, now with Western States
Petroleum Association, and Chevron’s Michael Rubio of Bakersfield.
The urgent response appropriate to the scale of our
climate emergency will remain out of reach unless Newsom and the state
Legislature change direction dramatically. To push them, youth climate strikes
will be held on Black Friday. People of all ages will challenge the status quo,
fighting against its genocidal outcomes.
Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/article237771754.html#storylink=cpy
The Trump administration is formally withdrawing
the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. Meanwhile, we face
utilities shutting off power to prevent massive wildfires of the sort
that destroyed property and claimed lives last year, wildfires breaking
out in places where the utilities are not shut off, and increased
damage and deaths from a larger and stronger hurricanes. Then, of
course, there’s the flooding that is beginning to damage coastal
communities. The costs of allowing climate change to continue are
mounting. And yet we keep hearing that reducing emissions will somehow
destroy the economy.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not
destroy the economy, but is the only thing that will save the economy.
That is why I have called my congressman’s office and asked that he
support HR763, a bill that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
market mechanisms while putting more money into the pockets of the
majority of citizens. That really is our choice — a little extra money
in our pocket and less damage, or financial catastrophe caused by
climate catastrophe. The smart money is on acting, not denying.
Matt Armstrong, Fresno
November 15, 2019
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article237339169.html
Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article237339169.html#storylink=cpy
I
want to thank Rep. Devin Nunes for sending me a survey that asked for my
thoughts about climate change.
But
I’m not sure he understands that addressing climate change is actually good for
our economy. The survey’s 2ndquestion
asked, “Is it vital that the U.S. cut its carbon emissions?” I wanted to simply
answer, “Yes!” But the closest possible answer was, “It is vital to cut carbon
emissions as soon as possible, regardless of economic impact.”
Actually,
it is vital to cut emissions — not regardless,
butbecauseof the economic impact. According
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the first half of
this year, our country experienced six extreme weather events that cost over $1
billion each. Last year, extreme weather events cost our country $91 billion. In
coming decades, our Valley’s farmers will cope with the damaging effects of
climate change as the Sierra snowpack shrivels up, crop yields shrink, and farm
workers suffer from hotter temperatures.
Unlike
our human mothers, Mother Nature is unforgiving. She has already given us a
taste of her medicine; more is on its way. Do the prudent thing, congressman,
and act now.
My daughter lives in the
Bahamas, so I watched Hurricane Dorian closely. While my daughter's island was
spared, sadly the Abacos and Grand Bahama took a direct and deadly hit.
Once again, another
monster storm has destroyed lives, livelihoods and property. For four decades,
climate scientists have warned that a warming climate would make storms more
intense and dangerous.
I find it tragically
ironic that some of the politicians who rely on the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to help them decide when and where to issue hurricane
advisories and evacuation orders, are the same ones who belittle and ignore
NOAA’s climate research and advice. In both cases, NOAA utilizes super-computer
modeling and scientific consensus to make its predictions.
Are
your local, state and federal representatives listening to climate scientists,
or to special interests who profit from the status quo? If you don’t know, this
is a good time to find out and demand that they utilize sound science to solve
the climate crisis.
After
all, next time my daughter … or your loved one … may not be so lucky.
I’m
glad that the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups now acknowledge
that climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gas emissions. But the
recent opinion piece by Heritage staff seems to claim that we can’t address
climate change without harming our economy.
Three
thousand five hundred economists, including all living former Federal Reserve
chairs (ie, Alan Greenspan, Janet Yellen) and 27 Nobel Prize winners urge
putting a price on carbon where it is produced and returning all the collected
fees to American households. A recent study aggregated the results of 11 top
peer-reviewed models that simulated the results of such a policy. There was a
clear consensus this would not harm the economy. The study showed it would save
thousands of lives, reduce climate risk, and save money by eliminating a number
of regulations.
HR763
is a bipartisan bill that proposes such a policy and now has 59 co-sponsors in
the House. The bill uses market forces rather than regulations to inspire the
innovation we need to drawdown greenhouse gas emissions. It also offers a just
transition to a cleaner energy economy For the sake of our children’s future, we
need to move beyond “business as usual”
I am looking for Republicans who are concerned about
climate change.
I volunteer with Citizens’ Climate Lobby. CCL is
deliberately bipartisan. We have a “Conservative Caucus” helping present our
ideas to Republican legislators.
But to be honest, CCL Fresno needs more Republicans.
Republican sentiment for strong climate action is
growing. Frank Luntz, the famous conservative pollster on Fox News, sent a memo
to Republicans in Congress. His polling found that Republicans support a “carbon
dividend” plan 2 to 1, reaching 6 to 1 for Republicans under 40.
Carbon dividends start with carbon fees on oil, coal
and natural gas. The money collected is distributed as dividends. Thousands of
conservative economists like this market-based plan for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
For 10 years CCL has pushed this kind of legislation,
and finally a bipartisan bill has been introduced, the “Energy Innovation and
Carbon Dividend Act”, HR 763.
Actually, three more bills have been introduced with
carbon fees. These others give only part of the money back to the people. The
other money is either swapped for lower payroll taxes, or spent directly on
reducing emissions.
