Cap-and-Trade. For Adults Only!

Cap-and-Trade Bill: Perspective and Opinion
On June 26th, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed The Waxman-Markey Energy Bill. The Bill now moves to the Senate where it’s future is far from decided.

What is Cap-and-Trade?
Under the Bill’s cap-and-trade system, the government starts with a total amount of carbon dioxide, “the cap”, businesses can emit. Initially, companies buy pollution credits at auction from the government.

If a company reduces their emissions faster than required, they sell or “trade” their excess emission credits to a company unable to meet the requirements. Over forty years, the cap is cranked down to reduce total carbon emissions by up to 80%.

Ideally, by creating a market for carbon dioxide, a gas released by fossil fuel consumption, we’ll reduce the amount of heat trapping gas we emit. If we make the polluter pay for their waste, the logic goes, we’ll pollute less or figure ways to obtain power from cleaner sources.

Big Deal?
Since most of us rely on carbon from fossil fuels for everything from turning on the faucet (electricity to pump water) to eating a meal (growing, harvesting, transporting, preparing) to typing on this computer, this impacts us all.

Proponents claim a future of green jobs, e.g. developing new technologies, insulating buildings and installing solar panels, while critics argue a fossil fuel energy tax will drive us deeper into recession as business passes on their costs to consumers.

Has anything like this been done before?
There are plenty of precedents for cap-and-trade, including in the US.
During the 1980’s, sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants created acid rain and ravaged forests, lake and streams of the Northeast. Despite millions of dollars by the coal lobby, The Clean Air Amendment of 1990 included a cap-and-trade provision to reduce coal plant's sulfur dioxide emissions. (it did nothing to limit other emissions, like toxic pollutants).

Nearly twenty years later, even it’s most ardent critics agree it has been an unqualified success. Emissions were reduced at a fraction of the cost the skeptics had argued it would cost. Additionally, the investment meant billions in health cost savings and increases in crop revenue.

For the first time, coal operators and plant managers had an incentive to reduce waste and pollution. Coal plant technology has changed little since the 19th century. In fact, the pet food industry spends more on R&D than does the entire utility industry.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive carbon cap-and-trade is a great deal more complicated than installing scrubbers on smoke stacks and finding cleaner burning coal for about two hundred coal plants.

European Carbon Cap-and-Trade:
Europe instituted a carbon cap-and-trade a few years ago and the results have been less than encouraging. Their biggest mistake, allocating (for free) more pollution credits than was necessary, caused the price of pollution credits to plummet. At the same time, utilities pocketed windfall profits at the expense of consumers.

Supporters of The Waxman-Markey Bill counter they’ve learned their lessons from Europe’s flaws. Yet, in order to win support from manufacturing, coal and industrial agriculture states, they watered down the bill on every front and agreed to give away, rather than auction, the vast majority (75%+ of the initial credits. There goes most of the revenue!) It also provides wiggle room and exceptions for polluters with clout (read: loopholes and subsides). Note: the bill grew from a two-page outline a few months ago to more than 1,000 pages.

Additionally, while the link between sulfur dioxide’s acid rain killing forests is readily comprehendible, most layman don’t make the connection between our fossil fuel waste and resulting costs, e.g. military expenditures, soil erosion, soaring healthcare costs, etc.

Negatives:
• Vast regulatory machine to set-up and administer
• The majority of credits are given away upfront
• Too little too soon: virtually nothing ‘til 2012, and little ‘til 2016


Positives:
• Revenue collected aimed at provisions to beef up energy efficiency (to save money) and to require large utilities to obtain electricity from renewable sources.
• Regulations in place to beef up the bill and reduce carbon emissions over time.


Carbon Tax: a better option?
Advocates for a simpler plan, with fewer regulatory costs, propose a straight pollution tax, i.e. a carbon tax. Upon closer inspection, it’s not as easy as proponents argue.

Yes, Waxman-Markey chose the cap-and-trade because polluters find it more palatable, but also because the goal is to reduce emissions a specific amount annually and, for this, the cap-and-trade is a better instrument.


Why do we need to reduce carbon dioxide, again?
I’ll agree with the vast majority of climate scientists: our emissions of carbon into the atmosphere cause climate change. I’ll also argue it’s OK to support a tax on carbon even if you don’t agree.

Two hundred years ago, there were fewer than one billion people roaming the land (mostly poor farmers). Today, we’re at seven billion (on our way to nine billion-plus) and more than one billion can’t find work. What changed: the use of fossil fuels.

In the 19th century, when we were short labor and long natural resources it made sense to subsidize the use of natural resources because it contributed to a rise in the standard of living. Times have changed, yet those companies that pollute and externalize their costs, wield more power than ever.

We’ll benefit from eliminating the billions of annual direct subsidies to coal, oil, gas, industrial agriculture and mining industries. Make the oil companies pay the US Naval costs for patrolling Middle East waters. Force coal to pay the clean-up costs of mountaintop removal mining. Demand logging companies pay to cut timber on government owned lands (and pay for the roads to get there). Stop the madness of giving billions to agricultural giants who grow corn with fossil fuel inputs to fatten cattle and fatten kids, read: high-fructose corn syrup.

So what do we do?
Our goal ought to be to increase quality of life, not increase GDP for the sake of increasing GDP. Economic growth, defined by GDP, in the US no longer equates to an increase in the standard of living. Our “happiness” index in the US peaked more than 30 years ago.

What to do about it: Shift subsidies and taxes to fuel a new revolution.

Altering taxes and subsides will affect change. People act on information the market gives them. If we want companies to use less of something, e.g. fossil fuels, eliminate subsidies and begin to tax. If we want to stimulate consumption, e.g. companies hiring workers, remove the taxes.

Reducing waste is good business- just ask some of the companies who aren’t waiting for public policy to change and reaping huge financial benefits from improving design, companies like Interface Global, Dow and Patagonia. Global consultant McKinsey and Company has published extensive reports highlighting the impressive ROIs to be had just by investing in efficiency.

As the Senate debates the cap-and-trade bill, we ought to
1. Work to remove subsidies given to the coal, oil, gas and natural resources industries
2. To encourage creativity and innovation, and reduce our addiction to limited resources, institute a cap-and-trade with teeth.
3. To encourage employment, lower taxes on labor.

Take the time to call your US Senators (and House Rep) and demand they work for you and our futures. www.congress.org

This is a historic time. We have a huge opportunity to move past the 19th century’s Industrial Revolution to smarter ways of producing energy. Now, more than ever, it’s vital our elected officials are working for us and our children, not corporations.

Better Education

Last week I mentioned one of my heros, David Orr. He runs the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College in Ohio and is responsible for the creation of their high performance building, The AJ Lewis Center.

What makes the building different?
It derived it's materials locally, cycles it's nutrients and runs on current solar power—producing more energy than it consumes. Yes, the upfront costs were greater and it took time to plan, but consider the total costs (annual operating costs, externalized costs, i.e. pollution, and hidden subsidies not used) and the building is a fraction the cost of a typical building.

More importantly, the building is more comfortable to be in, e.g. toxin-free. Most importantly, Oberlin uses the building as a teaching tool for it's students, from science to math, to history and economics.

What does it have to do with nature? It's modeled on how nature works.

The only thing crazy about the story is ten years after the building has been completed, there are not more buildings like this.



More on Orr:
David Orr argues for radical reform to our education. While nothing radical with that, Orr doesn't argue for change to better prepare a labor force for the global economy or to promote maximum upward mobility. Rather, Orr argues we've got to move past the Industrial Revolution and prepare students to create an economy that works on a planet with finite resources. In his words:

"The generation now being educated will have to do what we, the present generation, have been unable or unwilling to do: stabilize a world population which is growing at the rate of a quarter of a million each day; stabilize and then reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, which threaten to change the climate; protect biological diversity, now declining at an estimated rate of one hundred to two hundred species per day; reverse the destruction of rain forests, now being lost at the rate of one hundred and sixteen square miles or more each day; and conserve soils, now being eroded at the rate of sixty-five million tons per day. Those who follow us must learn how to use energy and materials with great efficiency. They must learn how to utilize solar energy in all its forms. They must rebuild the economy in order to eliminate waste and pollution. They must learn how to manage renewable resources for the long term. They must begin the great work of repairing, as much as possible, the damage done to the earth in the past two hundred years of industrialization. And they must do all of this while addressing worsening social and racial inequities. No generation has ever faced a more daunting agenda."*


*from "Environmental Literacy: Education as if the Earth Mattered."

Last week I headed east for a wedding in Long Island. Needing an excuse to spend more time in NY, I scheduled a few school visits. While the schools were neat and the wedding a fantastic party, the highlight may have been a stop en route- Oberlin College in Ohio.

Not only did I get to see one of my heros, educator David Orr, and tour one of the highest performing buildings ever built, I was treated to the best damn asparagus of my life.

Just off Oberlin College's campus lies a 175-acre former commodity crop farm recently given new life. A few years ago, when housing developers nearly turned the depleted farmland into a cookie-cutter subdivision, Oberlin College stepped in and saved the day. The result: The New Agrarian Center at The George Jones Memorial Farm, a restored prairie and wetland with a small farm that grows real food.



The land had been a soybean and corn farm reliant on large doses of fossil fuels to make it go- from the production to the manufacturing to the distribution of processed foods. In the process, wildlife and jobs were eliminated, soil eroded and the air and water polluted.

Today, the land provides animal habitat, cleans local water, sequesters carbon and, in only a couple of acres, grows $60,000 worth of vegetables a year (by comparison, the same amount of land will yield less than $1,500 worth of corn). Just as importantly, it's a teaching tool. College kids intern on the farm and Cleveland elementary kids arrive by the busload to get their hands dirty. They learn about farming and ecology hands-on and are treated to some things kids don't get much of these days—real, local food, and knowledge of where it comes from.

I learned most of this from Director Brad (who pointed out the blue herons) and Educational Programmer Evelyn (who didn't mind me eating two asparagus for every one I picked)....Thank you!




P.S. I'll be back with the high-tech building......it's closer to a living tree than it is to a traditional building.

Growing Green Minds: The Benefits of the Great Outdoors
Published in www.afreshsqueeze.com

Children benefit from time in nature outdoors. I spend as much time as possible with kids and see the results firsthand. Even if it’s just exploring in the backyard or at the park down the street, the outdoors provide an opportunity to engage all the senses -- see, hear, touch, taste and feel -- in a way electronics can’t. Kids exposed to nature early and often usually are more aware, have higher energy levels and increased levels of self-confidence. The evidence of needing nature for healthy childhood development is far more than just anecdotal.

Sample research findings:

Unstructured outdoor play provides excellent opportunities for cognitive, social, and emotional development in children (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005).
In a study of 400 youths, a majority reported that wilderness challenge programs had major positive impacts on their physical, emotional, and intellectual development and well-being (Keller & Derr, 1998).
Participation in green outdoor activities such as fishing was associated with reduced Attention-Deficit Disorder symptoms in a sample of children from the Midwest (Faber Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001).
Henry David Thoreau said: "...the more slowly trees grow at first, the sounder they are at the core, and I think the same is true for human beings." In other words, let kids be kids -- get them outside in unstructured activities so they can develop their affinity to bond with the natural world. Wander with toddlers while their imaginations soar and pay attention as elementary schoolers explore their expanding worlds.

Consider efforts to get your children hooked on nature to be an investment in your family’s health. Turn off the blackberry, put away the wallet and get outside! Getting involved is not as difficult as you might imagine. For ideas, visit:

The Chicago Wilderness' "Leave No Child Inside" program
The Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum
Chicago Botanic Garden is a North Shore gem and packed full of opportunities.
Make 2009 the year of connecting your kids to nature.

For our youth, nature and environmental education shouldn’t be about melting ice caps and disappearing rainforests. Contemporary environmentalist and place-based educator David Sobel sums it up: "If we want children to flourish, to become truly empowered, then let us allow them to love the Earth before we ask them to save it." For older children inspired to make a difference, consider our local Jane Goodall's Roots & Shoots organization.

Go Green, Ditch the Screens

In honor of Earth Week, last week millions of people around the world decided to put down their remote controls, shut off their laptops and make their way outside.

Today is the final day of Turn-off Week 2009, a worldwide event which lasted from April 20-26 and encouraged people to eliminate screen time in favor of a more rewarding, active life. Championed by the Center for Screen-Time Awareness (CSTA) and supported by national organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Education Association, Turn-off Week attracted about 5 million participants in the USA alone last year, and now, even though the official week has come to an end, you can (and should) join the movement.

Too much screen-time is physically and mentally unhealthy, but in the United States and many other industrialized countries we keep watching more and more television. The statistics are alarming. According to the CSTA Web site, the average American household has 2.55 people and 2.73 televisions, making us a nation of more television screens than people.

photo by Aaron Escobar

Here are some more interesting facts that may surprise you.

•Number of 30-second commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
•Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5
•Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
•Percentage of children ages 6-17 who have TV's in their bedrooms: 50
•Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
•Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
•Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
•Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66

As a nation, we need to find some balance in our lives. By simply switching off the screens for a bit, we have more time to read, see friends and exercise. You’ll probably find yourself feeling more energetic and more productive.

Why not give it a try? Extend your celebration of Earth Week by making it an every day commitment to appreciate more green with less screens.

The Goodness of Green: When a little dirt and sunshine is just what the doctor ordered

After months of studying parenting magazines and agonizing over the perfect name, months of wondering what color her hair will be or if she'll have dimples, of daydreaming ahead to her enrollment at an ivy-league school or reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, when the big day comes and our baby finally makes her entrance into the world we are thrilled with the utterly simple: ten fingers, ten toes, and the realization that all that ever really mattered to us was holding a healthy, healthy child.

All parents want what's best for their kids, and after getting over the excitement of ten fingers and ten toes, most do everything in their power to give their children the right resources to learn and grow. Traditionally this has meant setting proper sleep schedules, providing nutritious meals or reading bedtime stories. But for the new, technology-savvy parents of Generation Y, the moms and dads who grew up in the internet-age of constant information, the right resources has come to mean interactive learning tools like Baby Einstein--a line of multimedia products for 3-month-olds to 3-year-olds that were designed to boost cognitive development. Hoping for the happiest, healthiest and brightest children, these parents put their trust in technology.

. .

Yet despite the marketing successes of Baby Einstein and other interactive products, studies overwhelmingly indicate that a new approach is needed. To be clear, the time has come to trade in the screens for a little bit of green.

In the early 1980s, Harvard University biologist Edward Wilson developed a theory of "biophilia," the idea that people have an innate affinity for the natural world. Removed from our natural environment, we face innate feelings of restlessness and alienation which may be detrimental to physical and mental health, and the same holds true for children.

Most of us have probably heard about these studies, about the results which confirm that unstructured outdoor play can improve children's psychological and bodily health by reducing stress, improving concentration and encouraging physical fitness. But did you know that nature actually has viable HEALING powers as well?

During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of studies showed that the mere act of looking at the outdoors can have direct benefits for hospital patients, office workers, prison inmates and car commuters. Indeed, a view of nature was found to help reduce blood pressure, headaches and illnesses, while also leading to greater job satisfaction among workers and quicker recovery rates for post-operative patients. It's not surprising, then, that doctors are increasingly issuing "green prescriptions," advising patients to battle their ailments with some exercise and time outside.

By looking at life through nature, or leaving our apartments and entering into life via nature, we gain a little bit of life ourselves. Just imagine how our kids might benefit.

So put away the Baby Einstein toys, turn off the television and go take your children outside. Enjoying nature can be as easy as walking out your front door and finding some chalk to play hopscotch, or encouraging a game of tag in the backyard. Take a look at some of these other fun activities for ideas.

When it comes to helping our kids love nature, the options are endless and the need is real. Indeed, if you're looking to give them all the resources to grow and learn--to ensure the health you came to love years ago when you first counted those ten fingers and ten toes--a little dirt and sunshine is just be what the doctor ordered.

Just Write It Down

Today's Did You Know fact is a real doozie: There are 851 species of plants native to the Illinois plains. For those of you who thought that prairies were all boring swathes of dun-colored grass, think again: in springtime, the prairies are a veritable riot of color.

The smooth blue aster is but one of the many flowers that covers Illinois' prairies when spring arrives.

Your Miss is reminded of this fact because I keep somewhat of a loose illustrative journal, and in winter, it dies down to a big fat pile of words, whereas, in spring, summer, and fall, it is, on some pages, just a mess of ink and noise. I paste things in, draw macro illustrations of leaves and flowers, or just of funny patterns that I see on rocks or in the sky. I'm particularly fond of drawing in maps of where I am.

I am not skilled in the least, nor can I work in anything but pencil or pen, since I find carrying around a big clutch of writing utensils to be just too much for my rudimentary skills, but still--I jot it down.

A few of the Miss' past journals.

In short, I do everything I can to mark the scene. I'm fully aware that I can't duplicate everything I see, or even come close to it, but it's as if, in the very act of taking time to jot down a rough illustration of the things I've seen, I'm making that much more of an impression on my memory.

And it's true--these journals above are the ones in which I know where everything is. I can tell you that the one on the right, with the life cycle of a butterfly and the curiously tall drawing of a house, also has pasted into it a particularly charming photo of a dog. He's the oldest dog I know to have been adopted from an shelter, and his name is Charlie. (He has four teeth left.) I can tell you that the journal on the right has some really bad attempted illustrations of the Andes and some Amazonian plants from a trip I took to Ecuador.

I'm a writer by trade, so I can do this with some of the other journals I have, which are "illustrated" only with words, but the ones in which I've drawn are the ones that really matter as the materials that reference where, when, I was at a certain point in time. They add such a rich dimension to my memories.

The point is, of course, that, with 851 plants in the Illinois prairie system, and goodness knows how many across our United States--this is a great way to get your family deep into the stuff that makes up your surroundings. Drawing something leads to questions, a conversation, even, and remember, your drawings don't have to be terrific. (Don't be intimidated by gorgeous journals created by professional artists. They are amazing works of art, but every illustrated journal started somewhere, and your kids'--and yours--will have their own unique merits.)

This journal, from graphic designer Gay Kraeger, is something your Miss aspires to on a regular basis, but alas, she cannot draw birds. Or work in watercolor. Or do pretty lettering. Oh, well. (Journal copyright Gay Kraeger.)

Don't pluck anything out of the ground with the intention of pasting it into your book because you're frustrated that you can't reproduce it exactly on your page. When flowers and leaves dry, they don't look anything like they did when they were green and thriving, and anyway, your sketches will help you to remember what they looked like. (This advice comes from the heart. When I was much younger, I plucked things out and pasted them in with impunity, and all I'm left with is some loose scotch tape and some faint plant imprints.)

Do, however, encourage rubbings. Lay a page of your book over a rock or a leaf, or anything with texture, and use the flat side of a pencil or a crayon to rub over the page. You'll have a nice, unique memory of the way something looks like it feels--and that's just as nice, if not better than, having pebbles pasted into a book.

A leaf rubbing. When you're done, have your kids put the leaf back so that someone else can enjoy it.

You can get fairly inexpensive, recycled-stock bound books at any stationer or art store. Get something with a hard back, so you can hold it in your hand and doodle whatever you see in front of you. I like the Moleskine books, which are in the middle price range (although not of recycled stock) and come in a selection of sizes and styles. Invest in some good pencils and some nice erasers, find something pretty to look at, and draw away. Just a quick sketch will imprint the scene in your brain, at least until you see something else to draw--but then you will have something to look back on: Just turn back a page.