Addressing global warming, the EPA, and the question of democracy.

The big news this week is that the Obama administration through the EPA has proposed a 30% cut in greenhouse gasses from power plants by the year 2030. After we say the obvious, it’s still in the proposal stage, power production is just one source of greenhouse gasses, 30% is too little and possibly too little to late, what do we say? Pundits could wax poetic all day about each of these points.

I want to go behind the question of what the EPA proposal means to how it happened. I’m not talking about the specifics of the back room deals or who convinced whom that this proposal should be put forward in its current form.  I want to ask is this some reflection of democracy working, at least almost working?

Let me frame that question more fully.  Many of us voted for Obama first out of hope, and then out of despair.  In voting for a candidate who promised change in the nations response to global warming, Did we set in motion this action by the Obama administration? Do the proposals weaknesses reflect the compromises that are necessary when the populous has divergent opinions? Do the proposals strengths reflect populist political voices being heard?  Or, as it often feels, is democracy long since done with, and oligarchs and big money are now running the show.

I would like to think that this proposal promises to be one of the positive effects of voting for Obama.  It's up there with an imperfect health care law, some early gestures towards nuclear disarmament, opening up the military to openly gay people(which we're not sure is such a good thing since the world is probably better off when fewer people are allowed to fight), and the bailing out GM and Chrysler  (which was actually important because it showed that the government could "nationalize" a major portion of the auto industry) and a possibly somewhat quicker sort of withdrawal of most troops from Iraq. Without a doubt I do believe that Obama's politics are far better than either Romney or McCain. I believe this particularly in the area of global climate change politics. 

A more cynical view of things sees this all as orchestrated by political puppeteers representing the interests of the super rich. In this view these puppeteers, often called lobbyists, some times called advisers, even known as trusted political allies, all work together to create a picture in which the only logical choice is the one that the power élite want. Obama the liberal compromises to the right , a conservative president would compromise to the left, but the results are fairly similar.

Does a 30% cut in carbon emissions from power plants represent what the science of climate change suggests is necessary, where the cost and benefit lines cross on the graph, or is it some compromise between the interests of the coal industry and the interests of the insurance industry looking a extreme weather and rising tides.

While both the “democracy in action” and the “power overlords” scenarios are both a bit cartoon, reality likely has some amount of each.  We can squabble over how much of each, but in the meantime it’s worth acting like we have some democratic power.  If you care about the planet,  who doesn’t? I’d like to encourage you to make an effort to comment to the EPA on this proposal. We have until the end of September to do so. I think comments should emphasize that 30% is not enough.  There are also 4 public hearings around the country worth attending in the last week of July

If climate change activists don’t comment we may get a 28% cut in carbon or less. I’d be surprised if it went up to 35%.  Wherever those numbers end up two things are clear: it will be better than no numbers, and it won’t be enough. Even still cutting emissions on electric power generation is only part of the picture. The tar sands pipelines could reverse any gains this proposal promises. Other pieces of the picture include: addressing  industrial contributions to greenhouse gasses;  taming  the excesses of consumer society; creating energy competent buildings, and reinventing agriculture away from agribusiness. There are political arenas where there is more to do.  Promoting tough international treaties, State, county and city level legislation,  Local initiatives(like the cooperative investments known as community solar) , Grass roots organizing and direct action (like blockades of the XL and Embridge pipelines)  are all part of the solution.

If 30 % cut in greenhouse emissions for electricity generation is a reflection of the percent of corporate interests for and against carbon control, and if this proposal stimulates further growth in the renewable energy sector and in any way inhibits the carbon sector, we can hope that the corporate world will reflect this shift in its future influence on political decisions, offering proposals that are increasingly effective. Of course I’d rather have it that we could just trust democracy to direct our political leaders to fully address the problem of human driven climate change, I’m just not sure that that is the system we have.