It’s been several weeks since H.R. 109 was introduced to Congress, recognizing the duty of the federal government to develop a Green New Deal. In just a short time, this Resolution has attracted a whole lot of attention, including inaccurate comments from our President on Twitter. However, when we do a little bit of research and find what is actually being called for in H.R. 109, we can see that this ambitious call to action is not nearly as controversial as those distracting tweets would have us believe.
Using mountains of evidence including 40 years of satellite data and 800,000 years of ice core samples, the scientific consensus on man-made global climate change has reached what is known within the scientific community as the ‘Gold Standard’. This rare achievement means there is only a one-in-a-million chance that climate change is caused by something other than human activity; as close to certainty as we can get.
The Green New Deal is a non-binding resolution; just a vision for how to tackle a legitimate crisis. It calls for 5 broad goals to be accomplished within the next decade, which may help us to avoid the worst effects of the projected temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius. Coastal sea encroachment, agricultural challenges, and population migrations are just of the few of the expected consequences of inaction. The first of these 5 objectives is what we will focus on today: Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Other objectives will be discussed in future editorials.
An economic strategy called “carbon pricing” is widely recognized by conservative and progressive leaders alike as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This strategy has been proven effective, as shown by the EPA’s Acid Rain Program of the early 1990’s. This was the first national Cap and Trade program in our country, and by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants, it effectively ended the threats posed by acid rain.
It was an incredible success.
By using this proven economic approach, we could enact a carbon price of $300/ton (as opposed to zero now), resulting in huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and a slowdown in the warming of the atmosphere. And unlike carbon pricing in some other countries, our American proposal would not negatively impact working class citizens; carbon dividends would be refunded back to citizens with zero revenue kept by the government. In addition to this economic proposal known as Carbon Fee & Dividend, we also need to invest in renewable energy. But electricity generation only accounts for 28% of American greenhouse gas emissions; transportation is now the greatest source. Nowhere in the text of the Green New Deal is there a call for getting rid of cars or airplanes, as our President has mistakenly suggested. But we absolutely do need more public transit, high-speed rail, and electric vehicle infrastructure.
Agriculture also contributes to our emissions. And although the Green New Deal says nothing about outlawing cows, these ruminants do belch large amounts of methane from their unique digestive tract, equal to 1/3 of our total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. While carbon dioxide is the most well-known greenhouse gas, methane is nearly 30-times more potent in terms of its heat-trapping capacity. With the recent election of Jair Bolsonaro as President of Brazil, the Amazon rainforest is now facing a serious threat of destruction, due in large part to the booming Brazilian cattle industry. Cattle ranching is responsible for 80% of all Amazonian deforestation, and Bolsonaro has stated that the Amazon is now “open for business.”
This situation is a double-edged sword; more greenhouse gas emissions, and less capacity to remove them from the atmosphere via dwindling rainforests. While legislation like the Green New Deal will be required to fully counter the threat of climate change, we as individuals can play a big part by doing things like avoiding any Brazilian beef or products containing Palm Oil. American consumers are one of the greatest influences on global economic systems, and therefore global land use practices. Making better-informed decisions with our wallet can have a ripple effect far beyond the reach of our local community.
And if it means spending a little bit more for sustainably produced, American beef rather than the cheapest fast food burgers available, perhaps we all can accept some minor sacrifices for the good of our future generations.
Chris Werle is leader of the Hattiesburg chapter of the Citizens' Climate Lobby, and can be reached at hattiesburg@citizensclimatelobby.org
