CitizenMetz

Carbon Consciousness & Action

Did Pope Francis Call for a Gasoline Boycott?

Pope_Francis_at_VargihnaMuch of the media attention on Pope Francis’ recent encyclical focused on its recognition of the causes of global warning and the impact that the Pope might have on international and domestic climate politics,    Less publicized, but possibly more impactful in the long term, is the Pope’s call to consumers to wield their purchasing power as a force for change.

Pope Francis writes:

“A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products. They prove successful in changing the way businesses operate, forcing them to consider their environmental footprint and their patterns of production. When social pressure affects their earnings, businesses clearly have to find ways to produce differently. This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. ‘Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act.’ Today, in a word, ‘the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle.” (Laudato Si, Para. 206)

The education and mobilization of consumers to reduce their carbon purchases has barely begun.   The vast majority of consumers have no idea how much CO2 they emit, nor any sense of moral responsibility to reduce their CO2 emissions, other than perhaps owning a car that gets more than 20 mpg.   Lack of leadership has been a principal driver of consumer apathy.   Until the Pope spoke out, there have been virtually no high-profile persons or organizations calling on citizens to examine their lifestyles and to curtail their carbon purchases. Read more…

Advertisements

Gasoline and Cancer: New Research Confirms Links

woman in mask pumping gasRecent scientific studies confirm links between exposure to air pollution from gasoline and diesel with cancer and other diseases.

It has long been known that some of the ingredients within gasoline cause cancer.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a program of the World Health Organization, classifies benzene, a principal ingredient of gasoline, and 1,3 butadiene, a component of gasoline exhaust, as Group 1 carcinogens (chemicals which cause cancer in humans).

Now, new research in peer-reviewed scientific journals from around the world is finding that people exposed to high levels of vehicle exhaust or to gasoline vapors are at significantly higher risk of getting cancer.

A 2015 study shows elevated risk of eye cancer for children living closer to busy roads.   A 2014 study from Texas shows that children living in census tracts with high levels of vehicle pollution were more than 50% more likely to have cancers of the brain and central nervous system.  The Texas study follows 2013 epidemiological research from UCLA showing that children born on streets with higher levels of traffic and vehicle exhaust have substantially increased risk of leukemia and cancers of the testicles, ovaries, and eyes.  These findings correlate closely with a study from Italy showing significantly elevated leukemia risk for children exposed to benzene from vehicle exhaust.

People living near or working in gas stations also have cause for concern. A 2012 study from Thailand demonstrated substantially higher cancer rates for those living near gas stations.  A 2014 study of gas station attendants in Brazil showed much higher frequency of chromosomal abnormalities, a frequent precursor.   A 2011 study from Spain demonstrated elevated levels of cancer-causing benzene as far as 100 meters from gas stations.

Many other health risks are associated with vehicle exhaust, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart disease.  One study found that people living near polluted roadways were twice as likely to die from a heart attack as those living in cleaner areas.

Gasoline is a cancer-causing agent whose use creates serious health risks to all people, and particularly children, who are exposed to vehicle exhaust or to gasoline vapors.   People who live or work in areas with high levels of vehicle exhaust are at especially high risk, as are those who regularly fill their vehicles with gasoline.

Eliminating the widespread use of gasoline and diesel will result in significant public health benefits.

The Gasoline Purge

gasoline guy super slim

Many people don’t like using gasoline, but feel that they are unable to live their lives without it.  Is it possible to wean oneself off gasoline?

Most people can’t stop using gasoline overnight.  A realistic goal for most everybody is making a consistent effort to cut gasoline consumption, and to buy a plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid car when replacing one’s current car.

The average American drives about 13,500 miles per year in a gas-powered car, and consumes about 540 gallons of gas and emits about 10,500 pounds of CO2 per year doing so.

If one has a gasoline car, the best way to cut gasoline consumption is to drive less.  Avoiding the use of one’s car by taking the bus, bicycling, and carpooling are the best strategies for reducing one’s gasoline use.

For most drivers, the biggest opportunity to reduce consumption comes when one is ready to trade in one’s old car. Electric and plug-in hybrid cars are rapidly improving, and offer solutions for most budgets and driving needs.  Chevy Volts offer 40 miles of electric driving with a gasoline motor that provides effectively unlimited range when the batteries are drained. Used Nissan Leafs now start at about $10,000 and offer about 75 miles driving range, sufficient for a commuter or second car.   New options, including plug-in SUVs, are coming into the market in almost every segment, providing for a wide range of choices.  Switching to an electric car or a plug-in hybrid can reduce one’s gasoline consumption by 75-100% in one shot.  Getting an electric car and solar panels at the same time can allow a person to drive without polluting and without paying for fuel.

By contrast, buying a new gasoline-powered car is buying into years of throwing 10,000 pounds or more of CO2 into the air every year and to handing over $1500 or more every year to the oil companies.

The key is to make a consistent effort to reduce one’s gasoline consumption, especially when purchasing a car.   If we can make large reductions in our gasoline these changes, and lead our friends, neighbors, and co-workers to do so as well, we can make an important contribution to reducing the climate crisis.

Reducing Gasoline Consumption Key to Stopping Arctic Oil Production

platform feeding car Seattle activists’ spirited campaign to stop Shell from exploratory drilling in the Arctic is grabbing world headlines and focusing attention on the climate impacts of exploiting the Arctic’s enormous petroleum resources.  Opponents of Arctic drilling cite sound science projecting that the exploitation of Arctic oil will push global temperatures well over the 2o C threshold for a livable planet.

Shell defends its drilling in the Arctic as necessary to meet growing demand for gasoline.  And demand for gasoline is growing.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, Americans used, on average, 375 million gallons of gasoline every day in 2014, and are projected to use even more in 2015, despite a more fuel efficient fleet of cars and a much better selection of electric cars.  In 2013, Americans used more petroleum than China, India, France, and Germany combined.

The consumption of gasoline is ultimately financing the exploration and drilling for oil.  Without the steady cash flow provided by growing consumption of gasoline, enormously capital-intensive projects such as Arctic oil exploration would become financially untenable and grind to a halt.

The reduction of oil consumption scarcely registers for climate activists.  Other than supporting politically unfeasible carbon taxes, the environmental community has essentially no program to reduce gasoline consumption, the real driver behind the quest for more oil production.

What would a program to reduce gasoline consumption look like, especially if carbon taxes are, for now, off the table? Read more…

Is the Electric Car Tipping Point All About Cost?

gas car balanceA recent Bloomberg article “Big Oil Is About to Lose Control of the Auto Industry: A Pollution-free Revolution Is Coming,” reports that prices of batteries for electric cars are falling fast, that cost parity between electric and gasoline cars is likely to occur within a decade, and that worldwide electric car sales totaled 288,500 (0.5% of total sales) in 2014, five times the total in 2011.  The author posits that demand for gasoline is flat and gas prices are low in substantial part because of the increasing market share of low and zero-emissions vehicles.

Meanwhile, a report from auto website Edmunds.com suggests that green cars sales are highly dependent on gas prices.   According to Edmunds, hybrid and electric vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2015 declined relative to the same period last year because of lower gas prices.  Edmunds also reported that only 45% of people trading in a hybrid or electric vehicle in 2015 bought another one, down from 60% in 2012.

The relative cost calculus of gas and electric cars will likely be murky for many years, given the patchwork of subsidies available at the time of car purchase, the fluctuating prices of gasoline and electricity, and concerns about the battery longevity and resale value of electric cars.    Consumers that are not moved by environmental concerns and social pressures are unlikely to consider electric vehicle purchases until the cost advantages of electric car ownership are clear and well established, probably 5-10 years after rough cost parity is achieved.  The cost advantages of electric cars will depend on economies of scale—the more electric cars sold, the less expensive they will be.

The number of consumers who buy electric cars for moral and social reasons (assuming rough cost and convenience parity) will therefore be a critical factor in determining the speed of the transition from a gasoline-powered fleet to an electric fleet.

“Engineering” of consumer sentiment to reject gasoline and embrace electric-powered cars must go hand-in-hand with the chemical and mechanical engineering of the electric car.  The engineering of public disapproval of gasoline usage is still in its infancy.  Few people today would criticize a person for driving a gasoline powered car of average fuel efficiency. Consumers feel no social or moral pressure to avoid the use of gasoline, and therefore no need to spend a few extra dollars on an electric car.

A successful campaign educating the public about the vast quantities of carbon pollution emitted by the family car, and asking citizens to take responsibility for avoiding that pollution, could go a long way towards ushering in the era of the electric car, and the demise of gasoline.

Interview with Rob Shirkey, Proponent of Gas Pump Warning Labels

Rob-Shirkey-headshot-300x300

Rob Shirkey

In my last post, I discussed a new initiative from Canada to mandate the inclusion of warning labels on gas pumps.  Today, I interview the guiding force behind the campaign, Robert Shirkey, Executive Director of Toronto-based Our Horizon.  The text below is a summary of our interview, not a transcript.

Q.  How do  you assess  consumer consciousness regarding gasoline?

A.   The act of pumping gas is normalized, habitual, and automatic. We scarcely even think about gasoline, and have complacent about using it.  We need to bring the conversation about gasoline and carbon reduction closer to the end user.

To the extent we think about the global warming problem, we tend to think of it as a problem caused by industry, not by ourselves.

The goal of the sticker campaign is to shake up the complacency with which we view gasoline and create demand for alternatives.

While our goal is not to create guilt, if the end user does feel guilt, that helps establish conditions where change comes from.  Change comes from dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Q.    Are there sufficiently viable alternatives to gasoline right now?  Is it fair to ask people not to use gasoline before there are viable alternatives?

“If you make them want it, then you get to build it, then they will come.” If we keep on buying the old internal combustion engine, then it will take longer for better alternative vehicles to come to market. If you can signal to a producer broader market interest, you are signaling to them an opportunity to produce at greater economies of scale.

The sticker will create a thirst for better alternatives.  You make people want it first.

As long as consumers are complacent, we will not get the alternatives we want.  Complacency doesn’t drive change.  Consumers’ distance from the global warming problem perpetuates the status quo.  If consumers become dissatisfied with the status quo, they will demand better alternatives.

Q. Why have the mainstream environmental organizations not asked their membership more directly not to drive gasoline-powered cars?

A.  There is an ideological blindspot, a disconnect.The narrative popular with many activists is that there are big, bad evil corporations responsible for global warming.

If there is a narrative that we are all conflicted, that we are all part of the problem, it is harder to go to a protest and shake your fist.  The real enemy is inertia and the status quo in which consumers are comfortable using gasoline.

Sure, there are some bad apples in the petroleum industry, but our challenge is systemic inertia, not cartoonish big, bad corporations.  This narrative is more complex, but more honest.  I think it will be more effective.

Q. Where do things stand with labeling in San Francisco and Berkeley?  What do you think will be the first jurisdiction in the world to actually adopt the warning label requirement into law?

A.  There is a group in San Francisco and Berkeley that I have been advising.They haven’t yet implemented a labeling law yet, but they are at the tail end of the legislative process, and we are looking at another month or two before it is complete.  In West Vancouver, they recently passed a resolution in favor of climate change stickers on all gas pumps throughout Canada.

Many jurisdictions are reluctant to mandate the use of stickers now because of the threat of litigation.  No one municipality has as of yet been willing to be first, but I believe a number will be willing once the law is decided that municipalities do have jurisdiction to require warning labels.

In West Vancouver, the mayor was formerly a petroleum distributor, and he has said that he will voluntarily put the warning stickers on the gas pumps he owns.  Some consumers might want to support gas stations that voluntarily use the stickers.  Voluntary placement of stickers could be a big growth area for the sticker movement.

Q.  Is the time right for a gasoline boycott or similar coordinated withdrawal of gasoline purchasing?  When will the time be right? How could it be achieved?

A. I wouldn’t go the boycott route. But it would introduce another perspective and be an interesting downstream intervention.  We need to look at where fossil fuels companies get their revenue, which is from markets.  The only reason that pipelines, tar sands, and oil drilling occur is because there is a market for the product.  If we take away the market, all of these problems will disappear.

Gas Pump Warning Labels Push Consumers to Reject Gasoline

label-low_2-300x300--reindeerNozzle-300x300

Our Horizon, a Toronto-based environmental group led by Rob Shirkey, is campaigning throughout Canada and the U.S. to enact laws requiring warning labels on gas pumps which inform consumers about the environmental consequences of using gasoline.   The campaign is gaining traction.  Berkeley and San Francisco governments have given preliminary approval to the idea and are in the process of drafting the warning label regulations.  The City of West Vancouver recently passed a resolution favoring the warning labels.

In a stirring TEDx talk and on the ourhorizon.org website, Shirkey argues that the labels confront the consumer with the severe yet distant impacts of climate change, thereby counteracting the total lack of feedback between the use of carbon and its consequences.  Labelhigh-Oceans-300x300He also says that the warning labels “take a problem [climate change] of diffuse origins and locate responsibility right in the palm of your hand.”

Shirkey argues strongly for the gasoline consumer’s central role in combating climate change:

“We may worry about climate change, oil sands, pipelines, etc., but we rarely question the simple act of pumping gas. There is a complete disconnect. The act of going to a gas station and filling up a car has been normalized for several generations. The warning labels take this unexamined, automatic act and problematize it. In creating a sense of dissatisfaction with the prevailing mobility solution, they stimulate demand for alternatives. The labels disrupt the status quo, shake us out of our sense of complacency, and provide impetus for us to do better. label-low_4-300x300They are a catalyst for change.

Discourse around climate change in Canada tends to overlook end-use in favour of focusing on oil companies, points of extraction (e.g. oil sands, offshore drilling) or means of transportation (e.g. pipelines, shipping). Unfortunately, the uncomfortable reality is that we all share in responsibility for this problem.   Indeed, the vast majority of greenhouse gases come from end-use; emissions from extraction and processing pale in comparison to emissions from vehicle combustion.

[W]hile a diversity of approaches is important, there is a risk that in framing the [CO2 pollution]  issue as an exclusively upstream problem, we actually distance ourselves from it and perhaps unintentionally perpetuate the status quo through demand-side complacency. A complacent, disconnected marketplace is unlikely to affect change upstream; engaging consumer demand can help us to finally address these issues in a more meaningful way.” (p.17)

The labeling campaign has attracted vigorous opposition. The Western States Petroleum Association, an oil-industry lobbying group, said the plan imposes “onerous restrictions” on businesses and “compels speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”   A Berkeley councilmember said that the labeling ordinance is a “feel-good measure” that would “increase people’s guilt without giving them useful action.”

As electric cars and other transportation solutions become increasingly viable, consumer perceptions of gasoline will play a key role in determining the longevity of gasoline as the world’s dominant transportation fuel.  By graphically and repetitively reminding gasoline consumers of the environmental damage that gasoline use causes, gas pump warning labels can help shift consumer demand to other fuels and technologies and speed up gasoline’s demise.

Interview with Michael Vandenbergh, Author of Beyond Gridlock

2013 Vandenbergh headshot cropped

Michael Vandenbergh

Last week I reviewed Beyond Gridlock,” a major new article by Michael Vandenbergh and Jonathan Gilligan concerning voluntary carbon reduction strategies.  This week, I interview Michael Vandenbergh about the ideas behind the paper.

 

MNM:  Why have consumer-oriented carbon reduction strategies been given so little attention relative to carbon pricing schemes? 

MV:  We all share a conceptual framework that assumes that the principal actor that can respond to climate change is government, and the principal actions are government regulation or a carbon price.  Even our vocabulary locks in this framework – terms such “policy,” “regulation,” and even “international” imply that government is the key actor.  This is buttressed by our tendency to pursue panaceas, as Elinor Ostrom noted, rather than to pursue multiple strategies when the policy plasticity [MNM: ability to implement] of the optimal strategy is low.

MNM What are the principal political obstacles to consumer-oriented voluntary carbon-reduction strategies?  Could the left and right rally together around such a campaign?  Why hasn’t it happened yet? 

MV:  The principal obstacles to private climate governance are not political – that’s part of the advantage of this strategy.  Government, and thus politics, can be bypassed.  The fact that private institutions and private markets are involved suggests that those with a conservative worldview may be less averse to this solution than to others, and that provides some room for optimism.  Note also that consumer-oriented carbon reduction strategies are only a small part of the private climate governance strategy that professor Gilligan and I outline in Beyond Gridlock. Often corporations and other private institutions reduce carbon emissions because of influences from investors, lenders, employees and others, even if consumers are not engaged.

MNM:  How would you assess the “carbon literacy” of the American public?  Is knowledge regarding the amount of carbon one emits in daily life a prerequisite for an effective private governance campaign for households?  What would a carbon literacy campaign look like? 

MV:  The carbon literacy of the public in the US and around the world varies a great deal, with some having a sophisticated understanding but many having little knowledge.  Shahzeen Attari and her colleagues have done great work on this, and they have found that people often overestimate visible forms of energy use and underestimate by many times their energy use from some household activities.  Similarly, our research team found that people think they should idle their cars for over four minutes if they want to save gas, when the right answer is ten to thirty seconds.  Over ten million tons of CO2 emissions are associated with this idling, an amount larger than several industrial sectors.  Addressing energy invisibility and correcting myths provide two areas of opportunity for private governance response, using information to drive behavior change without requiring altruism or support for climate mitigation.

MNM:  Are there/should there be limits (voluntary, moral, or otherwise) on the right of an individual to use and emit carbon?  How can the concept of limits on carbon usage gain currency?  

MV:  This is an important but complex issue, and we do not address it in this paper.  We do suggest a private climate registry as a way for people in this generation to tell future generations what they did in response to climate change.

MNM:  Should the government set a “Recommended Carbon Limit” similar to the FDA’s Recommended Daily Allowance?  Should consumers at least be advised by the government as to what a reasonable per person usage of carbon is? (Note: I just wrote a blog post on this topic  wp.me/p1yDzM-2R)

MV:  This is an interesting idea, but government action is not what we are focused on at this point.   The point of our Beyond Gridlock paper is that although there are many things government could do, most of them are not viable in the near term, and much of the population dismisses government as the messenger.  Yet we need to start bending down the carbon growth curve.  To analyze new initiatives, we suggest always accounting for the technical potential and behavioral plasticity of any action, as well as the policy plasticity of the initiatives that could induce behavior change.  A Recommended Carbon Limit probably scores well on the first two but not so well on the third.  Following the analysis we suggest in Beyond Gridlock, one approach would be for a well-respected private organization, not a government agency, to set a Recommended Carbon Limit.  That may be more viable in the near term and may allow the concept to be tested and shaped while government remains in gridlock.

MNM:  What single private governance initiative is the most exciting and has the most potential to make a significant impact? 

MV:  The increasing pressure on corporations to disclose the carbon emissions of their suppliers (often called “Scope 3” emissions) is an initiative that has a great deal of promise.  It has a large potential because a large share of all corporate emissions originate from suppliers, and if the buying firms demand carbon reductions from suppliers, the emissions reductions pressure can cross international borders to suppliers in other countries without any international agreement.  This is one of the few ways to create incentives for emissions reductions among small- and medium-sized companies in developed and developing countries.   We are also very excited about the idea of a private climate prediction market that would enable people to buy and sell predictions about the accuracy of the climate science and to say, “put your money where your mouth is” in climate debates.

MNM:  Many have written that the battle to prevent climate change is the equivalent for our generation of World War II, yet the level of complacency in this country is profound, even though 80% plus per the recent New York Times poll now understand that climate change is occurring and that it is man made.  What will it take to galvanize and mobilize the public to make the radical changes necessary to address the CO2 problem before it is too late?  Where do you see the leadership coming from? 

MV:  We think it is a mistake to assume that this mobilization must occur in the near term only through the traditional political processes that affect governments at the state, national, and international levels.  It is also a mistake to start with radical change.  When concern about a problem, such as climate change, is widespread but a low-priority preference for many people, the best response may be to try to buy time while a sufficient consensus develops and the barriers to government action are overcome.  We can achieve more than a billion tons of emissions reductions annually over the next decade by using private initiatives to address market failures and behavioral failures that are widespread around the globe.  The principal message of Beyond Gridlock is not that government action is not necessary but that it is a mistake to wait for the optimal government response.  Instead, we should be pursuing emissions reductions through public and private initiatives to buy time for a more comprehensive response.   The leadership to pursue a private climate governance strategy could come from advocacy group or corporate managers, philanthropists, or pundits, or it could emerge from people who are on the sidelines now but become motivated to do something about the issue.

MNM:  Where is your research and writing headed next in relation to carbon emission reduction strategies? 

MV:  We are continuing to identify new initiatives around the world that are reducing carbon emissions despite the government gridlock at the national and international levels.  Once you make the conceptual shift to understanding the role that private governance can play in reducing carbon emissions, it is remarkable how many examples you can see around the world, and how many new possibilities emerge.

“Beyond Gridlock” Finds Enormous Potential in Private Emission Reduction Efforts

Beyond Gridlock2

Vanderbilt Professors Michael Vandenbergh and Jonathan Gilligan’s new article “Beyond Gridlock” (advance version available here, publication in the Columbia Environmental Law Journal in Summer 2015) finds enormous potential for carbon emissions reductions from voluntary private actions by businesses and households despite governmental gridlock.  Mobilizing such private initiatives could buy additional years to enact comprehensive national and international climate legislation and agreements before we reach a 2oC rise in global temperatures.

The authors examine a wide array of private initiatives, ranging from corporations requiring carbon-emission disclosures from the suppliers in their supply chain (as Walmart, Cisco, and Dell have done), to drivers shutting off their cars when they idle for more than 30 seconds, to a private climate registry wherein individuals can register their actions to prevent climate change for future generations.  They conclude that these and other private initiatives together could lead to a reduction in annual CO2 emissions worldwide of a gigaton or more.

Beyond Gridlock is an important counterweight to the excessively narrow focus of many in the climate movement on carbon pricing and other forms of governmental action.  Many sectors of society are ready, willing, and able to make major reductions in their carbon footprint without any governmental involvement whatsoever.  Corporations, foundations, and people concerned about climate change should deploy their creativity, resources, and energy towards voluntary efforts now, regardless of what our politicians are doing (or not doing) on climate.

The authors suggest that private action may accelerate the likelihood of government action, by enlisting broader participation in the climate mitigation effort, and by reducing the negative impacts of a carbon tax on businesses and individuals.

Beyond Gridlock points the way to further research.  What conditions activate dormant citizens and corporations to reduce their carbon footprint? What can foundations, universities, advocacy organizations, and others do to promote and support private action?  What role can local, state, and even the federal government play in expanding it?  How can a culture of private action be fomented?

Beyond Gridlock is an important work because it marks a path for citizens and organizations to realize major reductions in CO2 emissions despite a gridlocked political system.

(Coming soon: Interview with Beyond Gridlock author Michael Vandenbergh)

Can a Recommended Carbon Limit Do for Carbon what Recommended Daily Allowances Do for Food?

Carbon DietWhat policies can bridge the divide between the public’s concern about the climate crisis and their unwilling-ness to pay additional taxes on energy?

Recent  New York Times polling found that 83% of Americans (including 61% of Republicans) believe that global warming will be a serious world problem if nothing is done about it.    The public’s high level of concern about global warming does not translate into willingness to pay more for carbon.  The poll found 63% of the public opposed to higher gasoline taxes, and 74% opposed to higher electricity taxes.

One low-cost, high-return approach would be for the government to set and promote voluntary guidelines and targets for individual carbon emissions limits similar to the “recommended daily allowances” the FDA sets for calorie and sodium intake.  The Recommended Carbon Limit (RCL) for Americans could be set, for example, at 27,500 pounds (12.5 metric tons) of CO2 emissions per year (30% below the existing U.S. per capita average or more than 50% above the European average), and could be reduced 5% annually from there.   Just as with food’s “nutrition facts” box, the RCL could be paired with a labeling campaign, which could, for example, inform consumers at the gas pump that using a gallon of gas emits 20 lbs of CO2, or state on their electric bills how much CO2 was used to generate their electricity.

The purpose of the RCL would be to raise consumers’ awareness of their carbon emissions and how those emissions contribute to the world’s CO2 problem, and to encourage consumers to set limits on their emissions.

Establishing an RCL would generate enormous controversy and debate about the individual’s duty to conserve carbon, the role of government in setting carbon limits, what the appropriate carbon limits should be, and whether there should be different limits depending upon where one lives.  These debates would highlight the consumer’s role in carbon reduction and raise awareness of key carbon-reduction issues that receive little public attention.  The debates would also highlight key issues hindering carbon reduction efforts, such as many communities’ dependence on coal-generated power, poor mass-transit in suburban and rural area, and the difficulties of financing home weatherization and solar panel installation.

The RCL would likely be more politically popular than carbon taxes.  Americans’ visceral opposition to higher taxes would be avoided.  The limits would be set without regard to personal wealth, and would therefore be more egalitarian than gas taxes, which fall harder on the poor than the wealthy.  The limits would be completely voluntary.

RCLs would bring out into the open the issue that has long been obscured in public debates—whether individuals’ use of carbon should have limits.  Carbon limits should have the imprimatur of government, because of government’s unparalleled reach and credibility, and because it is important that the entire population understand that everyone needs to do his or her part in solving the CO2 problem.

We are running out of time to deal with the climate crisis.  A clear message from the government to consumers about their role in addressing their carbon emissions is both critical and long overdue.  Just as the FDA’s recommended daily allowances help people establish a healthy food diet, RCLs are necessary to help us establish a healthy carbon diet.

Post Navigation