The New Energy Debates

Brian Tokar

One of the most pressing issues facing us all, including the new Democratic-controlled Congress, is what to do about energy policy and climate change. With sweeping changes in the leadership of key congressional committees, and heightened public concerns about the consequences of disruptive climate shifts, the time appears ripe for significant changes in US policy.

Environmental lobbyists in Washington, however, are bracing themselves for only minimal steps. California Senator Barbara Boxer, the new chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is planning comprehensive hearings on climate and energy policy—a departure from the approach of her predecessor, the notorious right wing climate-denier James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind,” and included science fiction writer Michael Crichton among his “expert” witnesses. But with many congressional Democrats beholden to automobile, agribusiness and other corporate interests, Capitol Hill is braced for only the most incremental changes.

The emerging consensus is that emissions reductions of 60 – 80% are needed to forestall the worst case scenarios, and that meaningful steps toward these emissions goals need to begin almost immediately. Is this possible? NASA's James Hansen and other analysts have posited an alternative scenario in which CO2 production levels off by the end of this decade and begin to decline rapidly as new technologies kick in by mid-century. This would slow warming to less than 2 degrees, still insufficient to prevent massive habitat losses or the submersion of numerous island nations, but enough to reduce the projected sea level rise to only 15 feet or so. Some economists, however, predict a 30 to 40-year turnover time for significant capital investments on a large scale. Can anything be done to head off impending disaster?

More in this month's Z Magazine and at http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2007/tokar0107.html.