OK, I've bought in. I understand that action needs to be taken soon in order to avoid climate disaster caused by reckless anthropogenic emission of GHGs. I want to do my part to ensure a more stable and sustainable planet for future generations.
So what now? I already recycle, use public transit in my commute, and keep up to date on the scientific and political debate. I try to buy local foods when possible, and am much less carnivorous than I used to be (really I should just cut it out entirely.) The thermostat is turned down, and CFLs are installed overhead. I write my congresspeople. But all of these are individual choices, and almost negligible as such. Even conservation efforts on the part of many, if successful, may have unintended consequences: when we drive down the demand for gasoline by biking to work, it makes it cheaper for other, less environmentally conscious consumers, to drive Hummers.
Thus, it is really only action by our government that can make individual efforts meaningful. Investment in alternative energy sources, an overhaul of the electrical grid, efficiency standards, and tax and subsidy structures favoring cleaner habits are all necessary in bringing atmospheric carbon back down to 350 ppm. This raises the question: how do I, as an individual, best invest my time to help curb GHG emissions?
Infighting
You may ask: why not volunteer for or give to one of many organizations that are committed to rallying and lobbying for climate legislation? Haven't they already succeeded in passing the Waxman-Markey bill through the House? If only it were that simple. The climate movement, as of right now, is fractured, and doesn't have the broad, grassroots support that is needed for change. Climate SOS mocks Al Gore, while Hansen and Krugman argue over cap and trade. This, while global warming isn't exactly the priority it should be for the public. Politicians will pay little heed to lobbyists on an issue when their constituents are largely unconcerned and uninformed (unless, of course, those lobbyists represent the rich and powerful.) The task is made even more difficult when the environmental movement cannot sustain a clear and consistent message.
Should I take sides? Should I join an organization like Climate SOS in an effort to block what is possibly the only legislation we can get when it really matters? Is it right to help a group that is willing to attack people on their own side? Or should I help organizations like the Sierra Club pass a deeply flawed bill that really only gives the appearance of progress? Neither path sounds very appealing.
Civil Disobedience?
Instead, I could join in campaigns of civil disobedience, such as the sit-in at Coal River Mountain. As grad students, however, it is difficult for my wife and me to hop in a car and drive around the country to participate in such events. Even if I could, though, it seems that these actions by environmentalists don't garner much traditional national press (unless a celebrity is involved), or have much of an effect on national or state level policy. I'm not arguing against this sort of protest, I just feel that its impact is limited in this political environment.
The Rallying Cry
Coal Power Plant Timelapse from Jeff Grewe on Vimeo.
In reality, we will never see a completely united front on global warming. However, it helps to have a common enemy, a rallying cry. Something that can inspire people to fight. It has to be coal. In the words of Dr. James Hansen:
If we want to solve the climate problem, we must phase out coal emissions. Period.
We all know how bad coal is: CO2, surface mining, heavy metals, acid rain (yes, still), coal fly ash, etc. I have yet to find a real environmental group that supports its continued use. Also, the anti-coal movement has proven successful in defeating plant proposals. According to Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal:
For the first time in more than six years, no new coal-fired power plants broke ground.
This is good news. Three states, California, Maine, and Washington, have legislated strong restrictions on the building of new coal-fire power plants.
Anti-coal sentiment appears to be growing, and the movement has had some early successes. Daily Kos already has a couple of diarists writing primarily on this topic. Yet so much more work needs to be done. Not only do we need a moratorium on new coal plants, but we need to completely phase out coal emissions over the next 30 years. It's one thing to stop a new project from breaking ground, it is entirely another to shut down a plant that has been operating for 30 years and replace that baseload capacity. As strong as the anti-nuke campaign was 30 years ago, nuclear power still generates a significant portion of our electricity today.
What's a potential activist to do?
I'm thinking that I need to find local organizations that are fighting against coal and other fossil fuels in my region. In Syracuse, we have the Trigen power and steam plant. It is one of the top polluters in the county, and emitted 688,321 tons of CO2 in 2006. It is so old that it doesn't have to comply with the Clean Air Act. The local chapter of the Sierra Club appears to be working with the Onondaga Nation on local environmental issues. I suppose this is a place to start. What do you think?