Here's the
shocker: the solutions for these problems have already been found! If
implemented today, we could stanch the rise in world average
temperature, hold it to a 2 degree C rise with 88% likelihood of
success. I don't mean just replacing our grid electricity source with
wind and solar power. The technology already exists (and the
know-how) to gassify and burn fossil fuels much more efficiently,
yield less of the carbon by-products, and even create a pathway
toward burning waste organic matter on a large scale.
The reason that we are
not putting these power players into the field now to even
the score is obscured by economic rhetoric that is masking suicidal
stupidity. We are told: these solutions are not yet cost
effective. Before you accept that statement hook-line-and-sinker,
consider what it really means. We are faced with broad extinction of
life on Earth, perhaps even of ourselves, and recasting the planet as
inhospitable territory for perhaps a longer period of time than
modern humanity has been on the ground (and perhaps even longer than
that). Given these consequences, wouldn't it be reasonable to do
everything in our power to forestall such an eventuality, even if it
meant tanking our man-made economy?
Imagine playing
the board-game Monopoly, and discovering that the house you are in is
burning. Wouldn't you get up and exit the building immediately, or
attempt to extinguish the fire, even if it meant all your property
deeds and monopoly money went up in flames? Only an absolutely
asinine fool would sit there guarding his hotels and railroads while
all hope of escape vanishes, and death creeps ever closer. In fact,
the only trouble with this analogy is that, in the real world, there
is no escape from the burning house. If we fail to lift our eyes and
resolve the consequences of our aggressive fuel policies, we will bar
passage out of hell not only for ourselves, but everyone around us,
and 50% or more of the species that share Earth with us.
So what is the
real problem? “Not cost effective” means
that either we can't be bothered to do what needs to be done at any
cost, guarantee a certain standard of living to the myriad workers
who would be involved in implementing one of the available solutions,
or there aren't workers out there who are ready to say: “Yes, I
will be part of this. I will not charge by the hour, I will work
overtime, I will accept a fixed wage – heck, I'll even do this as a
quasi-internship for a stipend –, because this work needs to get
done.” This is the kind of attitude that powered the massive
upscaling of industry necessary to meet the military demands of World
War II, and the men and women, even the children, of that era rose to
meet the requirements.
We
now face a moment of similar, but greater, necessity. And here's the
truth: I believe that there is no shortage of individuals who would
gladly work under such conditions and blow up the usual me-first
attitude of the laissez faire economy, going to whatever length
necessary to halt our march toward annihilation. I suspect that for
every person headed to the oil fields or natural gas rigs right now,
there are five people who would sign on to extraordinary work
conditions if it would save us. The need for it just has to be
clearly explained to the people, and the government has to lead us in
taking the first step beyond the limited framework of our free
market. The government can still lead us in saying, “We will
bother to do what the moment requires, regardless of cost, outside of
cost, in a new day where co-operation beats the current attitude of
milking each other for our last dimes.
Join
us in Washington, D.C., Sunday, Feb. 17, on the National Mall, for a
massive protest declaring our rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline,
which promises, if completed, to bring ruin to humanity's attempts to
limit our greenhouse gas emissions. Urge the Obama administration to
do the “common-sense” thing, and block the Tar-sands pipeline. We
hope to see you there!
