JUST ENGAGE

As an undergrad, my professors explained that climate change would never be solved. Politicians, after all, will only seek solutions for problems that they can tackle in four-year cycles. And people will only seek solutions for problems they can see. But carbon emissions are invisible and global warming would not affect us for generations. Or so we thought.

But now, the effects of climate change are felt on a daily basis. Global temperatures have increased by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This spring, an ice sheet the size of Manhattan crashed into the Arctic sea. The recent listing of the polar bear as a threatened species explicitly acknowledged the role of climate change in their decline. The genocide in Darfur is widely attributed to resource scarcity caused by climate change. In short, climate change is no longer a problem we can shut our eyes to.

Unfortunately, to many people, climate change remains invisible. As reported in Reuters, Tesco, the world's third-largest food retailer, recently announced a plan to end that. It will begin placing carbon labels on 20 products to help consumers see the greenhouse gas emissions per serving of certain items including potatoes, orange juice, cleansers and light bulbs. John Tierney, likewise imagines that consumers would change their behavior if consumers could only visualize their emissions. In a recent article in the New York Times, Tierney, highlights a number of gadgets that would help consumers visualize their emissions. One gadget, called "the Wattson" changes colors based on electricity consumption. Tierney imagines a world where people would wear electronic jewelry to report their carbon use. These flashing mood rings and pendants would immediately allow onlookers to assess the carbon habits of their peers. And, Tierney speculates, "If the delegates to future conferences on climate change are expected to wear illuminated symbols of their energy consumption, they won't be visiting any more spots like Bali."

Tierney isn't alone in trying to figure out ways to make carbon tangible. A team of four teens in England recently won a competition for their proposed invention: the "Enuffometer." The gadget would provide minute-by-minute monitoring of energy use, with results that could be text messaged to the owner's mobile phone – and remotely disconnect wasteful appliances. As the insightful youthful inventors explain, the Enuffometer helps people visualize their emissions since "people find it much easier to fight something they can see." Well put.

Carbon mood rings and the Enuffometer will likely be among the tools of the future to help us visualize our carbon emissions. But other gadgets already exist. The "Kill a Watt" helps users determine how energy is being used around the house – so that they can cut back on wasteful devices. [You can purchase a Kill a Watt (and other energy-saving gadgets) at www.coejl.earthaidkits.com.]

Those of you who read my posts know that, for me, climate change is anything but an invisible problem. To the contrary, I fear its effects are far too visible. But even I could benefit from a flashing reminder when my energy use is excessive. After all, we all need someone to remind us when we've used "Enuff."

[For more on ways that already exist to visualize the effects of climate change, read Liore's May 28 post, "Have to See it to Believe it?"]

-----------

I'd love your thoughts on other ways we could send consumers the right signals about energy use.

Months ago, I met with my counterpart from another faith group.  I had been working at COEJL for about a week.  "Be careful not to get burned out," she cautioned.  "This is a marathon, not a sprint."  Little did she know, the Jewish people are well equipped for such journeys.  After all, we wandered for forty years in the desert before arriving in Israel .

Click here to urge your Senator to support The America's Climate Security Act.

I've been feeling pretty self-righteous lately.  About a week ago, I switched our home power supply to wind.  It had been on my "list of things to do" for months.  Every time I walked into my synagogue, I made a mental note to contact Interfaith Power and Light to learn more about renewable offsets.  And I kept meaning to grab one of the brochures about "clean, green power" on display at my local hardware store.  But, between my packages and my children, I never seemed to have a spare hand or a spare minute.  But last week, I finally decided to make the switch.  And it feels great.

For months, I've asked Senate staffers to support a provision that would require 15% of US energy supply to come from renewable sources by 2030.  I've bemoaned the last-minute omission of this mandate from the Energy Bill, which was signed into law last December.  I've written blogs, issued action alerts, and signed multiple coalition letters about the need to extend renewable energy tax credits to encourage continued investment in wind power.  And then I remembered Gandhi's exhortation: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."  Sure, I'd love to mandate that all Americans purchase clean, home-grown power. And I'd love to provide the incentives to make this economically viable. But climate change is moving faster than the political process – and I can vote for change with my light-switch.   As I wrote when the "We" campaign was first launched on national television, the key is to "mobilize America – and, in turn, empower our leadership." 

It turns out, this satisfaction is fairly cheap to come by.  For about 5 cents more per kilowatt hour – less than $500 per year – I can fuel my home on local wind power, instead of coal.  And you can, too (simply click here to find a green power supplier in your state). 

My purchase comes at a remarkable time.  Last Monday, the US Department of Energy released a new analysis concluding that wind energy could produce 20 percent of US electricity by 2030.  Critically, the report concludes that this energy could be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.  This makes sense.  After all, the Energy Information Administration reports that the United States has the third highest wind power capacity in the world -- higher than Denmark. And the American Wind Energy Association reports that wind power has the potential to provide more than twice the electricity generated in the United States today!

At a time when our government (and each of us) is concerned about a faltering economy and lost jobs, the federal report estimates that the wind forecast will create 500,000 new jobs.  At a time when scientists are telling us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, the federal report concludes that domestic wind capacity alone has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 25% (displacing up to 50% of natural gas and 18% of coal electricity demand). 

As a student in college, my car was emblazoned with the words: "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."  The 14,000 kWh my household uses this year will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis.  But imagine the cumulative effect if we all made the switch.  [Fellow COEJL blogger, Nina Beth Cardin imagined just that in this inspirational post]  And imagine how this effect can be multiplied when the political process catches up with popular demand. 

Click here to find out about COEJL's Earth Aid Kit campaign and purchase products that will make your electricity dollars go farther.

Climate change is expensive. 

Frankly, I don't think responding to climate change is what's going to drive our economy over a cliff.  Doing nothing, however, just might.  And on this point, EPA and I seem to be in agreement.  About a week ago, EPA released it's analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill – and the report confirmed what we knew all along:  we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 60% without harming the U.S. economy.  As Senator Warner (the Bills Republican sponsor) says, "You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers.”

In fact, EPA forecast that U.S. GDP would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been.  In other words, national climate change legislation will only modestly slow a thriving economy.

And that's only half the story.  The EPA analysis assumes the U.S. economy will continue to grow unabated absent climate change legislation.  In other words, the baseline disregards the costs of climate change.  It disregards the rising seas and dying forests and failing agriculture.  It disregards the cost of responding to hurricanes and elevating houses. And yet, in one basic regard, EPA and I agree: responding to climate change will not drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.

I'm not as happy as I used to be.  Being a climate change policy advocate is a tough job.  My days are spent working on an issue that could mean the end of the world as we know it.  It's scary – and depressing – spending your waking hours reading about the catastrophic implications of sea-level rise and melting ice caps.  Sometimes it's hard to focus on the hundreds of wonderful, positive things that surround me every day – a phone call from an old friend, a morning when my children sleep past 6:00 am – because these daily gifts are over-shadowed by the apocalyptic threat of climate change. 

And these fears persist when I'm not technically at work.  I was reminded of this reality repeatedly this winter when the temperatures in the DC suburbs crept into the 70s.  I found myself briefly enjoying a picnic in the park – only to feel guilty about my happiness.  After all, it seemed like there was a certain "appearance of impropriety:" how could I be happy wearing short sleeves in the middle of winter? And though part of me appreciated the time I saved this winter by not shoveling my front steps or bundling the baby before running an errand – I also believe these things are the necessary inconveniences of living on the East Coast.

It turns out, I'm not alone.  In fact, there's an emerging field of "ecopsychology" – a cadre of about 120 therapists worldwide who explore the relationship between people and the environment.  The New York Times recently wrote about the phenomenon – focusing, in particular, on people with "global warming anxiety."  One therapist teaches the afflicted to follow a "multistep process that is similar to kicking an addiction."   The prescription includes “'fasts'” from shopping, e-mailing, and the news, while cultivating calmer pursuits like meditation or gardening."  Who knows, it might work – as long as the gardening doesn't occur on a warm winter day.

I, for one, am happy that spring is around the corner.  At least then, I don't have to feel guilty about enjoying a walk in the park!

I'm not an economist, but I know the basics:  Lower the price and people will buy more.  It's true for every industry: From the proverbial widgets of freshman economics class to flat-screen TVs and tomatoes -- and renewable energy.  So, if we want to make people buy renewable energy, shouldn't we make it cheaper for them to buy it? Apparently, the Senate fell asleep during Economics 101. 

Last Wednesday, the Senate rejected a stimulus package that included $5.7 billion in tax incentives for (among other things) the installation of energy-efficient appliances and building improvements.  The package would have given tax breaks to wind-farm developers, appliance manufacturers and businesses that install fuel cells.  The Sierra Club reports that this is the third time in only seven months that the Republican leadership has blocked a package of clean-energy tax incentives.

The sad thing is, this should have been a no-brainer.  For one thing, the breaks were signed into law years ago.  Unfortunately, they are set to expire at the end of the year.  The stimulus package provided an easy vote for a short-term fix to extend the tax breaks while Congress works out a long-term solution.  Moreover, these breaks should have been an easy political win.  As Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist in Washington told the LA Times, these are one of the few things that both the Sierra Club and industry can rally behind.  The IPCC was just given a Nobel prize for finding that climate change is "unequivocal."  NASA just declared that 2007 can claim the dubious honor of tying for the second warmest year since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  Shouldn't we be doing whatever we can to encourage the use of low and no-carbon technology?

On Dec 4, an op-ed appeared in the Jerusalem Post “Fundamentally Freund” column, which chastised JCPA, COEJL and other groups for trying to “steal Hanukkah.” Apparently, we’re trying to diminish the light and holiness of Chanukah by using it to promote our activist agenda and promote the “Light unto the Nations Light Bulb campaign.”

Freund claims that promoting environmental activism, through changing to Compact Florescent Lightbulbs (CFL’s) is not a Jewish issue and that linking the campaign to Chanukah is inappropriate. But Freund himself uses a non-Jewish concept, to talk about Chanukah. One can argue that Freund himself would find his own use of the “goyish Grinch” objectionable. On the other hand, JCPA highlights Jewish concepts when framing an issue about light to connect to Chanukah.

The purpose of linking Chanukah to a light bulb campaign is not to get people to stop lighting candles for Chanukah. Rather, the idea is to get people thinking about contemporary issues during our celebration of ancient rituals. JCPA and COEJL are cleverly using the timing of Chanukah to get people to think about conservation, and what practical steps we can take to protect the environment. During Chanukah, the season of lights, JCPA and COEJL are asking people to think “out of the box;”  Let's extend our thoughts about Chanukah lights to think about our everyday light bulbs, which we can change for environmentally friendly ones.

Who is the Grinch now, Mr. Freund?