Beyond 80% by '50 to a Climate Positive Vision - a New Philosophy and Goal for the Climate Movement

By Morgan Goodwin, Jesse Jenkins and Juliana Williams

Two recent studies "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide... The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further."

We in the climate movement should take note of these headlines.  Apparently based on a cautious interpretation of the climate science, we've been calling for relatively incremental goals like 2% reductions in emissions per year, targeting 80% reductions by 2050 - one of the "mantras" of our movement since Step it Up.  We've been busy (successfully) making that 80x50 goal politically feasible.

Now the mainstream media is telling us - climate activists who are supposed to be pushing the cutting edge - that our goals aren't good enough.

"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."

If we get wrapped up in the targets we get caught up in the mess of what's politically feasible and scientifically relevant.  We as the members of the movement need to come at this from a different angle.  No more statistical targets.  We need a vision.

We as a country, we as a people and a society have overcome amazing challenges when we've been inspired by a vision.  Inspired by JFK's call to do the seemingly impossible, we put a man on the moon and built an aerospace industry that launched an economic boom.  Inspired by MLK's Dream and passion, we fought to desegregate our hearts and our society.

We now stand at the brink of a challenge that dwarfs those that have come before - climate change - and we are beginning to articulate a compelling vision that matches the scale of that challenge, of that opportunity.  We are ready to start building and talking about something inspiring and tantalizing, something truly revolutionary.  This sort of vision can be held by everyone in the movement, moving us from fear and despair at the scale of the challenge to hope and optimism at the equally grand scale of opportunity that challenge presents.  That sort of vision must be powerful enough to inspire individuals and society to action.

What is our vision?

Since the Power Shift summit, young leaders across the country have been developing an idea that feels both powerful and simple:

We can be Climate Positive.

Climate Positive has dual meanings.  It is a philosophy or mind-set, a way of engaging with the world and the challenge of climate change.  And it is also a goal, the target towards which we as a movement and a society are striving.

Climate Positive is a mind-set that engages eagerly in the opportunities inherent in solving the climate crisis by building a sustainable, just, and prosperous, post-carbon society.  It is a philosophy fueled by the vision of the possible, actively striving to make a better future a reality by engaging everyone in the solutions.

Climate Positive also means that net global greenhouse gas emissions are below the level at which they are absorbed by natural cycles.  In this sense, it is the ultimate target of our movement.  Putting aside percentages or numerics, Climate Positive is about restoring our atmosphere to a state of balance, and ending for good the climate crisis we are faced with today.  Our scientific understanding of what is necessary to achieve this goal will be refined over time (and probably become more urgent), just as the climate science has over the last few years.  The scientific understanding will change, but the Climate Positive goal will not.

Most of all, Climate Positive is a vision of what is possible, of the future that we are striving to create.  The vision is not complete - we are all building it every day.  But already, you can see it taking hold within the swelling ranks of the climate movement.

These days we are moving beyond simply talking about emissions reductions.  We are moving beyond talking merely about what we simply wish to avoid - melting ice caps, dying polar bears, a world of climatic chaos.  We are beyond talking about simple, small steps, like changing light bulbs and eating local.  These things are all still critical.  Emissions reductions are of course essential, individual actions and lifestyle changes are a way to start (get your house in order first, right?), and the nightmarish vision of the world we can expect if we fail to act fuels our urgency.

But we are also starting to see it differently.   We are uniting behind fresh visions that are inspirational rather than limiting.  We are moving beyond the paradigm of simply cutting carbon emissions to articulating bold plans for a new energy future that will reignite America's economy, generate a new kind of sustainable development, confront poverty and inequity both here and abroad, and build healthy communities that are not only materially comfortable but socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable and secure.

This approach, a Climate Positive mindset, and a Climate Positive target - a Climate Positive Vision - engages everyone in creating local and global solutions, unleashes human ingenuity, potential and compassion to end the climate crisis and build a brighter future.  Those of us in the climate movement can not come up with all the solutions to meet this challenge; not even everyone currently engaged in politics, science or advocacy can come up with all the solutions.  We will need everyone, everywhere working on every level.

Faced with this daunting challenge, we ask ourselves, what are global warming solutions?

A Climate Positive Vision recognizes that WE - human beings everywhere - are global warming solutions.  We are a force for change, a force that can step outside the old energy paradigm to build the future and present that we know is possible.  Ordinary people, acting in every community, hold the ideas and inspiration for change, and we can believe in those people as we believe in ourselves.

Daniel Quinn observes, "During your lifetime, the people of our culture are going to figure out how to live sustainably on this planet--or they're not. Either way, it's certainly going to be extraordinary. If they figure out how to live sustainably here, then humanity will be able to see something it can't see right now: a future that extends into the indefinite future. If they don't figure this out, then I'm afraid the human race is going to take its place among the species that we're driving into extinction here every day--as many as 200--every day."

We have the opportunity to build an extraordinary way of living.  Let's make it Climate Positive.

•  Tip Jar

  For a Climate Positive Vision

  by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    A climate positive vision must be our ultimate goal. But it is still will be pretty tough to even get a 80% by 2050 bill passed though congress and we need to recognize that.

    But in the long run? Climate positive. We need to restore our earths balance.

    Very good post.

    by Populista on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM PDT

    •  Take on the political challenge

      Populista, agreed on the political challenges to even a modest 80% by 2050 climate bill.  If we're committed to a Climate Positive outcome, we've got to recognize that  political realities currently do not accommodate what real reality demands.

      That means we must put our efforts into changing political realities, into building a Climate Positive social movement powerful enough to make a Climate Positive goal politically feasible.

      Our success in turning "80% by 2050" from a fringe idea to political mainstream in a matter of months gives me hope that with a much more compelling and expansive vision and movement, we can achieve far more over the next year.  

      From here to Climate Positive,

      Jesse

      by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM PDT

      •  The politics are changing

        faster than many in Washington realize.  The key is to be clear about what science and fairness require, and then demand that our political leaders get there.  Anything less is not acceptable.

        If the current Congress can't get it done, we have to elect more and better officials who will.

        by berning on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM PDT

        •  Exactly!

          by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM PDT

    •  That's not the hard part

      and may even be a mistake.

      The big increases in CO2 emissions are not coming from the United States and Europe.  They are coming from emerging economies, the largest of which are China and India.

      The hard part is getting the rest of the world to agree, or, failing that, imposing sufficient trade sanctions to keep from accelerating the exodus of jobs from industries in well-controlled countries to those who don't buy in.

      Absolutely, we should take all reasonable measures to cast off the yoke of fossil fuels.  Even some unreasonable measures.

      But we may be facing a problem we can't fix.  We need to figure that out -- whether we are in "fix it" mode, or "survive it as best we can" mode.

      by dinotrac on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM PDT

      •  Get our own house in order

        The (rapidly) developing world and their associated emissions levels are certainly a huge part of the equation, and one we must explicitly grapple with.  But how will we work to reduce emissions abroad without first getting our house in order here?  Any chance at stabilizing the climate globally will require us to start at home, and fast.  

        We cannot stand for continued delaying efforts that point the finger at China or India and think that somehow absolves us of responsibility.  

        If anything, recognizing China and India's role in this only highlights the urgency that we work to rapidly develop solutions to the climate crisis at all levels and scales and seize on the economic development opportunities therein.  It's not like China wants to burn fossil fuels.  What they want is economic development, and why shouldn't they?  Furthermore, who are we to deny them that as they strive for a standard of living at least half as good as ours?

        Of course the answer then isn't that we need to somehow reduce our standard of living to Chinese levels.  The answer is that the "China Factor" simply means we must truly commit to developing a Climate Positive future, one powerful enough to not only reduce emissions here, but also abroad, while providing pathways out of poverty for everyone.  

        No small task, sure.  But what's the alternative?  You really want to go into a "survive as best as we can" mode competition with 1.3 billion Chinese?

        by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM PDT

        •  Sugarcoating doesn't make it easier.

          >But what's the alternative?  You really want to go into a "survive as best as we can" mode competition with 1.3 billion Chinese?

          There may be no choice.  CO2 lingers in the air for a long, long time.

          As it is, if James Hansen is right about needing to get atmospheric CO2 to 350ppm (from the current 385 or so), my back-of the envelope estimate of 400 years to get there (very hokey -- but not bad for a rough guide: in the absence of any human contribution, it would take about 1,000 years to get within 20% of pre-industrial levels of around 275 ppm.  I round up from 3-something to 400 years because there is some question as to whether ocean absorption will continue at historic levels and, besides, it's not like we're going for precision here so much as a rough idea) means that we may not have the luxury of piddling around while China electrifies and India puts cars on the road.

          >Furthermore, who are we to deny them that as they strive for a standard of living at least half as good as ours?

          For that matter, who are we to deny them parity?
          You are absolutely correct -- and that's the problem.

          Look at some of the Indian commentaries in response to Western tut-tuts over introduction of the TaTa Nano.  Boils down to this:  You messed it up, why is it our job to fix it?

          We're going to face that very reasonable sentiment all over the emerging economies.  Oh -- did I mention that China and India alone have 2.5 million people?  Throw in Indonesia. South America, Africa, and the rest of the world, and emerging economies -- the ones that are dumping more and more CO2 into the air -- outnumber the "first world" by quite a bit.

          >Of course the answer then isn't that we need to somehow reduce our standard of living to Chinese levels.

          I certainly hope not.  Got any solutions to the problem?

          by dinotrac on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:53:00 PM PDT

          •  Survival

            Start with survival levels and work from there.  From bare survival to refugee camp.  From refugee camp to permanent settlement.  All built around a goal of zero emissions and start with Solar IS Civil Defense - flashlight, radio, extra set of batteries solar powered and hand cranked.  It couldn't hurt.

            Once that's available worldwide, which may mean a rise in standard of living for a billion or more people, we can start working on capturing carbon and methane from the atmosphere.

            At least, that's what I think is going to be necessary.

            by gmoke on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM PDT

            •  You might be right.

              The problem is, of course, that it may all be too late.  We are already above Hansen's 350ppm and CO2 is rising, rising, rising.

              Not falling.

              Every 10 ppm increase is another 100 years give-or-take to dissipate naturally -- IF the oceans continue to absorb as they have in the past.

              Unfortunately, the oceans absorb less as temperatures increase, and, at some point, actually emit CO2 back into the atmosphere, so...

              given that temperatures will be rising...

              So -- how long can we wait to start removing CO2?

              by dinotrac on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:29:17 AM PDT

              •  Survival First

                That's why I call for a solar civil defense, the basic necessities to have  on hand in case of emergency - flashlight, radio, extra set of batteries powered by solar and hand crank, independent of any grid.

                Then move to zero emissions - period.  That should be the goal.  Zero emissions, nothing goes into the garbage, all waste becomes food for a continuing process.

                Next is to start removing carbon and methane from the atmosphere.

                Those are my priorities.

                Yes, I believe that it is probably already too late but that's no reason not to do what is necessary now.  One should recognize that these priorities are not mutually exclusive and are not dependent upon doing one before the other.   We need to work on all these priorities today.

                My belief is that Reagan killed us.  Carter was calling for 20% of our energy from renewables by the year 2000.  Reagan stopped that dead in the tracks.  That is when we made the wrong turn into climate crisis.

                by gmoke on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:27:46 PM PDT

                •  Ah! I read you wrong.

                  Old, early-stage Senior Moments.

                  So ... Well, yes.

                  But no -- Reagan didn't kill us, nor any other US President, at least not in the sense of being done in by warming.

                  We are only one piece of the whole, and we are a piece that is shrinking in significance every single day.

                  Carter was urging those actions in the wake of the Arab oil embargo.  Given the technology of 30 years ago, and the costs involved, could any President have achieved that goal once oil prices went back down and the oil river began to flow?  Even Bill Clinton, with future Nobel prize-winning VP didn't make any big strides.

                  by dinotrac on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:25:32 PM PDT

                  •  Yes and No

                    One country actually did take the 1970s energy crisis to heart:  Brazil.  That country spent thirty years making ethanol from sugarcane waste (bagasse) into a real alternative to gasoline.  Not a panacea, but an example.

                    I say Reagan killed us because Carter's 20% by 2000 was a useful goal that would have made a real difference.  That, for me, the reactionary turning point on a variety of issues.

                    As for culpability, we are always digging our graves with our forks and other tools.  As human beans, we will always probably be doing so until we go extinct.  When we do go extinct, the Earth and life and the biosphere will go on.

                    Clinton and Gore were both too invested in the Kyoto protocols to get anywhere.  Neither was particularly active or evinced real interest in the topic while they headed the government.  Remember, it was George W. Bush who brought solar back to the White House.  

                    by gmoke on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM PDT

                    •  Bush has strange energy legacy...

                      I'd forgotten about Bush boosting solar energy spending.

                      He also took a lot of flak for pushing hydrogen, and a $1.2 billion hydrogen car program.

                      Admittedly, his hydrogen vision includes a lot of hydrogen derived from fossil fuels, but that's not as bad as it seems.  It's kind of like an infrastructure version of the Prius.  If you think about it, hybrid cars are a fairly bad deal.  Two drive systems -- extra complexity, extra weight, etc.

                      But -- they do use and cause to be improved many components of an electric car, including an electric car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, which would include hydrogen produced by renewable means.

                      Of course, if the countryside is detroyed and criss-crossed with oil pipelines you can only get out to see on the 11 days of the year when temperatures remain in safe ranges, then it won't matter...

                      by dinotrac on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:44:40 PM PDT

                      •  Hydrogen Cars

                        Bush could have gotten the auto makers to implement the hybrid technology developed and paid for by the Clinton-era gov/corp hybrid billion $$$ project but instead decided to fund yet another gov/corp billion $$$ project to develop hydrogen.

                        The object is not to get new technology into the marketplace but to get billions of $$$ into the pockets of corporations.  This view, I believe, is not cynicism but the way things actually work in this imperfect world.  It is one reason why I do not look for big solutions.

                        PS:  Any idea to transform our car culture is going to take at least a decade to play out as it takes that long for the existing vehicle fleet now on the road to turn over.  Problem is we may not have a decade to make that change if the recent statements by climate change scientists are to be believed.

                        by gmoke on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:56 PM PDT

                        •  Hybri

                          >Bush could have gotten the auto makers to implement the hybrid technology developed and paid for by the Clinton-era gov/corp hybrid billion

                          If government has a role in this kind of thing -- and I'm convinced that it does, it should not be promoting something that the auto-makers have demonstrated they are quite capable of doing -- especially something that is no more than a stopgap technology anyway.

                          Toyota and Honda have been selling hybrids for years.  Ford is selling hybrids, GM is juming in.

                          Hydrogen may or may not get it's kinks worked out, but it has the potential to be fossil-fuel free.

                          by dinotrac on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:25:01 AM PDT

  •  Great diary WattHead

    80 by 2050 doesn't cut it any more.  The mainstream media has grasped this before much of the environmental community.

    But the broader point makes sense too -- why argue about the specific end result when we aren't yet even headed in the right direction?

    Here's hoping enough people embrace your climate positive vision to make it a reality.

    by berning on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM PDT

•  Extraordinary Lives or Extraordinary Deaths

  The choice is really that simple.

  by greenskeeper on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM PDT

•  What's new here...

  isn't the article or the studies it was based on (see this Climate 411 post for reactions from some of my fellow scientists).  But it certainly puts some attention on the urgency of acting immediately.

  EDF's president just released a book about the race to create a new low-carbon economy (Earth: The Sequel), which he wrote "to inspire people to embrace a new and different future, rather than be afraid of it".

  by ClimateLurker on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM PDT

  •  What's new isn't the science, it's the messenger

    I agree that what's new here isn't the science.  I've been well aware that the science is pushing us to even more aggressive reduction targets for some time (see this post I wrote along a very similar vein in August 2007).  

    What's new here is the messenger: it's not just another scientific journal article.  Now the mainstream media is telling us that our targets are to conservative, to wimpy!  As activists and environmental advocates (or Environmental Defenders), shouldn't we take note and step up our activism accordingly?  

    BTW, your very same president of EDF, Fred Krupp, is pushing hard on a climate bill that doesn't event get us to 80% by 2050, so I'm a little suspicious that he truly groks the climate positive vision and the urgency of the science... but that's an aside.

    by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

  •  How the money will flow

    with the reversal of carbon flow seems the biggest challenge/opportunity.

    Is there a viable business plan for goods and services that capture carbon, not only for one business, but for all economic activity?

    I don't know, but that has to co-evolve with the technological and social innovations if human life is going to go on indefinitely.

    by RichRandal on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

•  Not sure that I'm convinced of the words ...

  My approach has been to advocate a Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society. Climate Friendly is, almost certainly, carbon-negative until we can get below 350 (or so) and restore climate stability to that in which humanity has thrived for 1000s of years.

  Prosperous: that the opportunity will be there for achieving "the American Dream" — an opportunity available to all.  Prosperity — we will be richer if we turn away from today’s heavily-pulluting and wasteful energy habits. Prosperity — in health, financial, security terms.

  Climate-Friendly: Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Carbon neutral, preferable even carbon negative, figuring out ways to actually removed carbon from the atmosphere in meaningful amounts to seek to restore ‘natural’ levels of variation to turn the clock back on Global Warming, to foster global remediation of the damage we have caused.  This is an objective — a stretch goal — that would provide the path more likely to avoid utter climate catastrophe than some X% target. Also, well, 100% is easier to explain than 90% — it is time to remove humanity’s pollution above ‘background’/natural levels. It is possible to see a path there and to follow it.

  Society: This is greater than "economy" and, well, this is greater than any single nation.  

  by A Siegel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

  •  About semantics

    Adam, I like your "prosperous, climate friendly society" phrase as well.  I've noticed you using it for a while.  Before coining Climate Positive, I had actually adopted a variation of your phrasing, calling for a prosperous, carbon neutral society.

    I think we're talking about the same thing though, and I find it comforting that we're both struggling to craft new language and messaging that captures a new, bold, expansive goal and objective.  Semantics are important after all!

    I agree that prosperity and the chance to achieve the "American Dream" must be central to a Climate Positive movement and goal.  For me, it's about building a society that is prosperous and sustainable, both environmentally and economically, and about crafting a more just society in the process.  That's why the mantra of my activism and writing has been "building a sustainable, just, and prosperous future." It's about all three, and they are inextricably interlinked.

    I also agree that "society" is more expansive and appropriate than "economy" and I think we're striving for a Climate Positive society for sure (as well as economy).

    Finally, on "Climate Positive" versus "Climate Friendly," we're getting at the same thing.  When it comes to emissions levels, I see "climate positive" as a synonym to "carbon negative," but with a, well, more positive spin...  Carbon negative sounds pretty negative for something that's all about restoring the climate - hence "climate positive" (or "climate friendly," right?).

    Also, while globally, we need emissions levels that do restore the atmosphere and climate - i.e. are carbon negative or climate positive or climate friendly or whatever we call it - that may not mean  zero anthropogenic emissions globally, right?  There is some capacity for natural sinks to absorb some level of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and as long as we are below that level, we will have a carbon negative/climate positive/climate friendly emissions level and will be positively restoring the climate.

    However, in the developed world, we will need to move rapidly towards 100% carbon reductions in order to "make room" for continued development in the developing world (and associated emissions).  So from an American perspective, we are talking about moving rapidly towards zero (net) emissions.  Time to get started, eh?!

    Anyhow, I hope we both continue to look for innovative new ways to describe, communicate and message the bold and necessary objectives we must work towards and the mindset or philosophy that goes with it.  Hopefully one (or more) of us will hit upon something that seems to resonate with people...

    by WattHead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:22:26 PM PDT

    •  Wonderful comments / thoughts ...

      and, mea culpa, I had a bunch of failed posts ...

      Meant to write something like:  "This is an excellent post on a very important issue with a lot of valuable material ..." And, then put in my "but ..."

      Mea culpa, again, for not having that in there. The "critique" wasn't meant to be criticism but supportive, with a questioning as to whether we could combine framing for something stronger.

      And, to do so publicly, we both know that we have a very serious overlap in terms of understanding of problems and hopes for a just/equitable/fast path toward solving /responding to them.  This is about working together to strengthen the approaches.

      Yes, 80x50 is now, almost certainly, inadequate.

      On the other hand, if the 'only' problem with 2009 legislation is the 2050 target, that is acceptable because (a) I think that once we start seriously down the path of 'solutions', we might astound ourselves with the speed and extent of successes and (b) that we can change a 2050 target in 2015 ... 2020 as the scientific understanding strengthens and as success reduces the barriers for even more aggressive targets.

      by A Siegel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:27:07 AM PDT

      •  Didn't think it was a critique...

        ...just wanted to discuss the semantics a bit.  As I said, I like your "prosperous, climate friendly society" framing as well and I'm definitely interested in looking for the best framing we can find to communicate what we both seem to be trying to communicate.  

        Agreed on the relative importance of the near-term and long-term targets.  One note though (I'm sure you know this): the borrowing provision that's in the Lieberman-Warner bill threatens to erode the relatively strong short-term target by letting polluters essentially "pull" emissions allowances out of the weaker long-term cap in order to pollute more in the short term (if the "carbon reserve board" of sorts the bill sets up allows it).  So in L-W, the weak long-term target also gives me pause and threatens to undermine the short-term target as well.  Makes me wonder why we even bother naming the long-term target...

        Why don't we instead focus on 2020 and 2030 targets and then say the law will take into account scientific recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences or something and establish a long-term target as appropriate by 2020?  Just a thought...

        Cheers...

        by WattHead on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:47:46 AM PDT

        •  25 by 20?

          Target of 25% of US electricity renewable by 2020 ...

          25% reduction in US GHG by 2020 (at least from current, preferably from 1990) levels.

          25% of electrical system in "smart grid" by 2020 ...

          25% reduction in US oil imports by 2020 (likely the hardest of these ...)

          All this sets the United States on the path toward a Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society ...

          by A Siegel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM PDT

          •  Sounds pretty good to me...

            ...would have to take a closer look at if 25% is enough in all of those categories, but on the surface, it looks like a great start.  Would require an aggressive push to achieve each of these and would definitely put us on the right path.

            by WattHead on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM PDT

•  Overcoming the self v. nature divide

  is in my mind a necessary step in creating the positive vision you are talking about. We are part of nature, not apart from it. We have incredible power and need to learn to use that as part of nature because it isn't just Co2 and climate, which is the clearest summary of the problem.

  We consume nature as if we truly were independent of it and when we talk of climate and society, or climate and the economy, or climate and prosperity we maintain the primary distinction that prevents a new vision. If we wholly incorporated a vision of who we are as being part of the natural world but having tremendous power what would we do with that power. I think we would use the power in large part to support nature while we were also using some of it to enhance our quality of living.

  I have been trying to come up with new approaches to communicate this but do not have anything short and sweet yet. We are at a place like Obama was before today's speech and it may not be possible to contain what needs to be said in a short sound bite ready phrase. It has to be deep and it has to involve a unity of nature and self and it has to be free of guilt. This is a very important topic that needs an ongoing process of discussion and development.

  by Bob Guyer on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:37 AM PDT

•  Energy revolution

  This is a great post. This paragraph was really inspiring:

  "We are uniting behind fresh visions that are inspirational rather than limiting. We are moving beyond the paradigm of simply cutting carbon emissions to articulating bold plans for a new energy future that will reignite America’s economy, generate a new kind of sustainable development, confront poverty and inequity both here and abroad, and build healthy communities that are not only materially comfortable but socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable and secure."

  Right on guys! Let’s put a bold, inspiring, muscular plan at the center of our vision: massive public investments in clean energy. $500 billion to spark an energy revolution, achieve disruptive technological transformations, create millions of new jobs, and build new energy sources all across America.

  As you articulate so well, we’ve got to take the positive and inspiring language to the next level and begin uniting young people across the country behind a vision that includes a strategy – a bold national plan – that we can aim to achieve.

  And you’re right on: we can’t rely on setting incremental targets, such as cap-and-trade’s 2% annual reduction strategy. We need an energy revolution. We need a price on carbon – absolutely – but we can’t put higher energy prices and limits at the center of our vision. If anything, a carbon price – whether through cap-and-trade or a direct carbon tax – should be used to raise the funds for a bold American investment.

  Onward,
  Teryn

  by Teryn Norris on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM PDT

•  Carbon Free, Nuclear Free

  A carbon free and nuclear free future is possible, and there are numerous groups working toward it, and trying to expand the awareness and need for this option. Check out the new book, Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, available at www.ieer.org (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a credible and vital institution). Also check out numerous resources on our website, www.nirs.org (Nuclear Information and Resource Service).

  Michael Mariotte
  NIRS

  by nirsnet on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM PDT