The 2014 midterm election approaches and there is one issue around which I hope every one can rally: the environment. It feels like we have been talking about the problem for a while. You know it as “global warming,” or maybe “climate change” if you are trying to appease the old geezer who “feels like the planet is getting colder, not warmer!” But really, it’s tomayto, tomahto, and it’s time the issue be addressed.
Some people are doing just that. Supporters of environmental policy change converged in New York City this past weekend. They marched on Sunday, Sept. 21 to encourage leaders of the United Nations to curb greenhouse gas pollution.
My question is — will it have an effect? And what’s more, will Republicans uphold any changes made to environmental policy if they take control of Congress? I’d like to think yes, but the realist in me says no, because the unfortunate truth about climate change is that, for some, solving it is not a top priority.
Many Americans (I should specify here — many Republicans) believe that, while global warming itself is harmful, there are costs associated with solving it that outweigh the benefits to the United States.
An example — President Obama proposed an Environmental Protection Agency regulation in June requiring all states to create climate-change plans. New Jersey had been cooperating with the requirement because former Democratic Governor Richard Codey instituted a cap on carbon emissions in 2005. And then ... Chris Christie came to town.
Christie, the current Republican governor of N.J., withdrew his state from the plan in 2011, citing fears that the state’s economic and legal interests were at risk from the agreement.
But wait, Gov. Christie! According to a 2011 study done by Analysis Group, an economic consulting firm, the overall economies of states participating in cap-and-trade programs improved, not to mention that their greenhouse gas pollution declined. Under Gov. Codey’s 2005 plan, electricity bills increased less than one percent while the state collected $118 million from pollution permits.
The International Monetary Fund reaffirms this trend on a global level. The group has projected that measures to limit emissions would either have a negligible effect on economic growth, or maybe even foster it. They point to the effects climate change has on public health and thereby the economy. Their basic example: burning coal causes respiratory problems, which means medical costs and a less productive society.
So, Christie’s logic is faulty, but hey, let’s give the guy a break — we all make mistakes, right? Sure, but this time his choice seems intentional. Gov. Christie appears to have withdrawn from the cap-and-trade plan to appease other Republicans, specifically those who might donate to his 2016 campaign (cue Koch brothers). And this is the problem.
While some Republicans might be on board with fighting climate change (N.J. State Senator Kip Bateman is one example) many Republicans share the conviction that solutions to climate change and a growing U.S. economy cannot coexist. As a result, many Republicans steer away from environmentally (and apparently economically!) beneficial programs such as cap-and-trade.
Alas, change seems unlikely. With this pre-dominant Republican mindset, and a Congress that seems like it could soon go red, I am not sure that our country is ready to make great strides. And because the United States has such an enormous environmental footprint, there is an American imposed limit to any U.N. effort.
Nonetheless, power to the people. I believe that the climate march creates awareness for environmental initiatives while shaming those who do not step up to solve the problem, a powerful tactic. But to fully change the game and give those who fight climate change an advantage, we need to push harder.
This means grassroots protests like the climate march, writing letters to those in charge (local government representatives, business leaders, etc.) to encourage environmental initiatives, and as for the big dogs — the Obama administration — it means showing lawmakers compelling data such as Analysis Group and the IMF studies to force practical change.
In short, it is no longer enough to adhere to the environmentalist stereotype. We cannot be laid-back hippies because this is not a laissez-faire issue. Those who will make a difference need to pair pragmatism with passion and propose cohesive solutions to the inescapable truth of climate change.
Artwork by VAASU TANEJA
