Obama's pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 300 million metric tons by 2030 and the Department of Agriculture's decision to spend $68 million on "540 renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects in rural areas" represent steps in the right decision. But these numbers only serve to show how much we could be doing as a wealthy country and one of the world's leaders in greenhouse gas emissions.
$68 million dollars?
Try $200 billion annually, the amount that Economics professor Robert Pollin has calculated it would take to maintain the global average temperature at 60.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 3 billion metric tons (4%) by 2030?
Try 18 billion metric tons, or 40%, the amount that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated would be necessary to maintain our global average temperature.
We could do so much more. Follow me across the divide to hear more about Pollin's proposed program.
Now, I understand that $200 billion per year is a a metric shit-ton of money any way you look at it, and that there is plenty of pressure on and within Obama's government from the right and even the center to prevent the the needle on climate change from sliding too far.
To that first objection - $200 billion is a shit-ton of money - Robert Pollin points out that it's only 1.2% of our annual GDP. "Critically," Pollin says of his proposed plan, "this program will not require ordinary Americans to sacrifice job opportunities or even overall economic well-being." In fact, if we quadruple investment in the Clean Energy sector, it will create all kinds of new jobs that will invigorate our economy and compensate the jobs lost in the coal and oil industries.
Pollin thinks we should start big by dramatically raising energy efficiency standards in buildings, transportation systems, and industrial processes, and, equally dramatically, expanding the supply of renewable energy sources—solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale hydro, and clean bioenergy." A massive restructuring or our largest infrastructures would be difficult, he says, but is completely feasible.
A critique I've heard from many Centrists (the far Right is totally lost on this one, because they don't believe Climate Change is real, let alone a threat to our survival) goes like this: well, why should we reduce our emissions when China and India aren't doing it, they're just as guilty as we are.
Why should we change our policy before India and China? Because somebody's got to lead the way on this one. That argument is an example of playground logic; you can almost hear a child yelling "but India and China don't have to play nice, so why should I?" If anything, India and China's slowness to move on this issue make it even more essential that the U.S. ramp up its clean energy investment and policy, because doing so would place significant international pressure on the other two large producers of greenhouse gas emissions to follow suit.
Clearly, this is a moment when the climate crisis is finally coming into focus for the American people. Let's seize the moment, as much as we possibly can, as voters and citizens and activists, and ask that our government and the private sector take the steps necessary to sustain life on earth. Pollin has demonstrated that the numbers can add up.