I’m talking about the first ever bona fide tar sands extraction project in the United States of America–right here, in my own backyard!

You might have heard about the tar sands extraction happening in Canada. This nightmarish debacle has transformed countless acres of priceless Canadian biodiversity into a sticky black cesspool, for primarily America consumption. Don’t take my word for it; do a simple Google image search for “Canadian Tar Sands.” After you’ve done that, imagine the effect these proposed tar pits would have on the land immediately adjacent to the sites. Now picture that land as Canyonlands National Park. I’m not making this up.

The citizens of the areas where the proposed pits would be created have had absolutely no say in the permit acquisition and decision-making surrounding this project—and the pits might potentially break ground this year. Did I mention the entire operation would be run by Canada-based Earth Energy Resources? The company made their excited announcement in November of 2009, although Grand County citizens weren’t made aware of the impending project until this month.

Utah Clean Energy, an independent organization devoted to exploring Utah’s potential for alternative and renewable energy resources, recently released a study that explains, in detail, how exactly Utah could create hundreds of new jobs and bring in millions of dollars in new GDP by exploring alternative energy and beefing up our energy efficiency standards. And yet, here in Utah, while 95% of our electricity depends on coal-fired power, our geographical uniqueness is fundamental to our state pride and one main source of tourism revenue, and water scarcity is fast becoming a frightening illustration of some of the foreseeable impacts of climate change, we (and by “we”" I mean a wealthy-but-desperate handful of powerful and shady Utah businesses) want to welcome an industry that would use between twice and five times as much water per barrel to produce oil–oil that wouldn’t even be ready for use before undergoing  an expensive and emissions-rich cultivation process.

Using tar sands, also known as oil sands, as a “cheap” source of fuel is a joke. According to the Pembina Institute, mining tar sands requires between 750 and 1500 cubic feet of natural gas for each barrel of oil. I’m not great at math, but that doesn’t seem terribly economical to my mind. The tar sands mining and extraction process produces three times as many CO2 emissions as regular oil production; the Alberta tar sands project is Canada’s number one source for CO2 emissions. As far as I can see, the only positive thing about introducing tar sands mining into the United States it that it might (and this is a BIG might) reduce our dependence on, and merciless exploitation of, Canada’s tar sands resources, which we are currently reaping without remorse to fuel our morning commute. Why import Canadian tar sands fuel, and the technology to destroy our own land and water for American tar sands?

When you assess the fact that it takes five liters of water to produce one of usable petrol via tar sands extraction, this starts to seem blatantly criminal in a desert state. The privatization of water is a scary dream that is slowly folding itself into our reality, and when you realize that water is required every step of the way with tar sands extraction—to move gas, to build new tar pits, and to provide a waste receptacle for the filthy pits once they are up and running—you start to wonder where all this water will come from, in Utah. Colorado and Nevada are not too excited about sharing their drinkable water with us, of late.

So, what will it be, America? Should we urge Utah to become a leader on the alternative energy frontier, securing our economic and environmental future for our children—or shall we allow her to regress a decade or three, and become the nation’s very first home to tar sands extraction—and its subsequent leader in toxic emissions and contributions to global climate change? My decision is made. We are exploring every avenue for ways to stop this project, and we will update you on how you can take action to help. The tar sands nightmare will not be allowed into my beloved home state and our fine nation, if I have anything at all to do with it.

[Note: We are still trying to figure out the best ways to take action, so as soon as we have a good outlet, we will let you know.]

Other resources:
www.nodirtyenergy.org/
http://oilsandstruth.org/
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/

written by Tessa Barker, UO Climate Justice League Show Me Democracy Campaign Coordinator

Students at the University of Oregon want a strong climate bill now! Support on campus for passing climate legislation that would cap carbon and help to create a clean energy economy has been growing throughout the school year.  In November, we organized the regional Powershift West conference, drawing over 500 young leaders to the University of Oregon campus; in December, a delegation of UO students went to the International Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen.  And now, despite the lack of true results from COP-15, student leaders are more determined than ever to pass a strong climate bill in the US before it’s too late, and we are ready to show our community what democracy really is.

On February 18^th, students from the UO’s newly founded Climate Justice League and I rode our bikes to the courthouse for the first of many lobby days as part of the national Show Me Democracy Campaign.  At the heart of this campaign to develop broad-based support for a strong climate bill is community outreach.  From day one, students in our group have been working to build coalitions with members of the wider community, ranging from business leaders, to farmers, to faith-based groups.  The goal is for representatives from each of these groups to eventually join us in lobbying our senators.

Students working on the local level of this campaign in Eugene, Oregon had been meeting and organizing for weeks leading up to our first lobby day. We held lobbying trainings, and discussed our policy principles: cutting carbon emissions, building a clean energy economy, and demonstrating global leadership on climate change issues.  We even held mock lobby meetings, in which some of the student trainers pretended to be senators who were opposed to climate legislation, and who challenged us on almost every point we made.

Luckily, on the day of the actual lobby meeting, we ran into no such problems.  Here in Oregon, we’re lucky to have senators (Senators Wyden and Merkley) who, for the most part, “see eye to eye” with us on issues of climate change and legislation. For our first meeting, we had a video conference with Senator Wyden’s staff in DC, while the second, with Senator Merkley’s aide was a more traditional lobby meeting.  As a campaign leader, I found it incredibly inspiring to see students who weeks earlier had been completely new to the issue discussing the need for a cap on carbon, and weighing the pros and cons of different energy sources with the senator’s aide.  It was also great to see that the aide had remembered some of us from a previous lobby meeting last fall – and proceeded to follow up with answers to the questions the students had asked months earlier.

Both meetings were quite successful – the senators and their aides valued the work we as students have been doing to gather support for a strong climate bill, and they encouraged us to keep it up.  Students came away from the meetings feeling like they actually had a voice in the political process.  Still, the campaign is far from over. Another lobby day is just around the corner, and as we told our senators, we will continue to keep coming back until a climate bill has been passed.

Our planet is in peril and we need our Senators to pass a strong climate bill this year. We are at a critical moment, not only for our planet, but for our country. A new bipartisan proposal is taking shape, and may be introduced in the Senate as soon as this week.

The question is, will this bill create the clean energy economy we need, or will it fall victim to lobbyists from Big Oil and Coal who will fight tooth and nail to maintain our addiction to dirty fuel?

Today, we are joining with dozens of organizations across the issue spectrum to launch a massive grassroots call-in campaign: 72 Hours for Clean American Power. Together, we will flood Senate phone lines to make sure voices for clean energy are heard over the special interests.

Join in! Add your voice to the call for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

Failure is not an option. It’s our future, and it starts with a strong bill from the Senate which will transition our country to sustainable power sources, end our dependence on foreign oil, and create millions of new jobs along the way.

Only a massive, overwhelming, response will keep the polluters and their allies in Washington from killing or gutting legislation in the Senate. In order to ramp up the volume, Consequence and our youth partners are excited to also announce Earthstock, a first of its kind social media powered rally at the foot of the Virtual Capitol Building to demonstrate the overwhelming demand for comprehensive solutions to climate change.

Join us at Earthstock and make your voice heard for a clean energy future!

The time is now. We cannot wait any longer. This our moment, let’s make it count.

All of this comes at a time when the U.S. Senate continues to try to figure out how to proceed with climate and energy legislation. In a Sunday op-ed penned by Thomas Friedman titled “How the G.O.P. Goes Green,” one of the leading figures in crafting legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina acknowledged that he is inspired to take up climate and energy legislation because of young people on college campuses. Graham correctly points out that young voters are driven by deeply-held environmental values, and more lawmakers would be wise to wake up to this, but Graham’s solutions of nuclear and offshore oil-drilling are both counter to our values and economic interests. Every dollar spent on the dirty energy economy, is a dollar that could have created more jobs in the clean energy economy we must create. That’s why in the coming month it’s essential that we, as the Millennial Generation, further define what our vision for a clean energy economy really is.

Already dozens of events are being hosted around the country that will help us do just that. Check out the event registration page for the full listing and see a couple of highlights below:

• At Pennsylvania State University they’ll be constructing the “Foundation of Our Future,” a big art installation that students can write about there demands for clean energy on.
• An open-mic at Murray State Univ (KY) for people to share poetry and vision for the decade!
• Define Our Decade Vermont Kick-off!  On the heels of the Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant decision, and two-years before it’s close date, students at Middlebury College are going to launch their initiative to get a statewide commitment for 100% clean energy!
• Events across the Buckeye State to support Power Vote Ohio in Making Green a Primary Color – they want clean energy candidates to define their future!

There’s a ton of great stuff on the event registration page, I really encourage you to check it out, and host an event of your own! This idea has come about through extensive discussions with leaders around the country about the solutions we have to share, so we are really excited to come to fruition. Register your event to become part of what is turning out to be an incredible movement-wide discussion on our future, and to take action to make our vision a reality! We’ll be having another discussion on a National Leaders Call this Wednesday, March 3 at 9 PM ET – I really hope you’ll join us and register an event of your own!

Naturally, one of the hot topics of conversation was Senator Murkowski’s bill to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a criteria air pollutant.  Senator Murkowski has drawn fire for these views, since this is seen to be the last hope for achieving meaningful GHG reductions if no bill passes this year.  The chances of a bill passing this year are looking smaller and smaller – the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has failed to materialize, despite their op-ed pledging a bipartisan bill.  According to Campbell, while Kerry this morning seemed optimistic about the state of the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Reid today stated that if a climate bill is not brought before the Senate within the two weeks, climate change is not going to be addressed this year.  This puts huge pressure on Kerry – it is increasingly clear that another year without action will have huge economic and environmental consequences.

Mr. Campbell defended Senator Murkowski’s anti-regulatory actions.  Her action against EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is not because she feels it is not contributing to global warming–rather, that the language of the Clean Air Act is not sufficient to regulate GHGs as it is now written.  However, Mr. Campbell revealed, Senator Murkowski is not sitting pretty with no opposing solution.  Her office, together with about 25 other Republicans and 25 Democrats, as well as industry and environmental groups, is working to draft a bill that would impose a net zero carbon tax.  GHGs would be taxed at the narrowest possible source (perhaps entry into the system, perhaps somewhere else) – and one hundred percent of the revenue would be redistributed to the American citizen through a refund of their FICA tax or a direct credit for those who do not pay a FICA tax.  It seems that this bill is still pretty far off though.

The conversation then turned to more Alaska-specific issues – ones that I, as a non-Alaskan, had no idea were even on the agenda or of concern.  What an eye-opening moment for me! I’m in the midst of studying environmental policy at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, and these were issues that had never come up in classes.

Alaska’s dependence on oil is one source of concern – those famous dividend checks are a powerful incentive to want to keep the oil industry booming in Alaska, but Mr. Campbell pointed out that Alaska’s legislature is looking actively at ways to diversify the energy portfolio in Alaska, with lots of debate happening in Juneau.  Possible options include geothermal, wind, and tidal – depending on the region and the resources.

The next issue – the opening of the Northwest Passage.  One student asked, “What are the cultural and environmental challenges as the Northwest Passage becomes navigable? Are we prepared and is the federal government prepared to defend against environmental destruction?”  Mr. Campbell’s answer was heated – this is one of Senator Murkowski’s biggest complaints about the federal government at the moment.  She thinks that the Arctic is not being talked about enough and it’s something we have to consider.  As a representative of the Arctic Parliamentarians Group, she is fighting for the government to consider everything from how we handle vessel response to emergenices to how to secure funding for defense and climate change adaptation.  Currently, said Mr Campbell, the nearest Coast Guard station is located in Kodiak.  That’s like dealing with problems in Florida with Coast Guard vessels sent from New Jersey – hardly an effective defense strategy.

What are the defense and foreign policy implications of an ice-free Arctic?  Fisheries, mining, and passage fees are some of those mentioned by Mr. Campbell.  Fisheries along the Western United States are already endangered – how should we treat these newly opening fisheries?  The prudent thing to do is to restrict expansion of fishery rights into these areas until more information is known about the fish populations in the areas – but will we do the prudent thing?

The natural resources possibilities in the Arctic Circle are unknown – but the USGS has reported the possible existence of large amounts of oil and natural gas.  Russia has been assertive about planting the flag and claiming rights – the United States less so.  Overall, said Mr. Campbell, the US needs to be far more aggressive and active in this area than it is being.  All the countries surrounding the Arctic Circle bump into each other up there – and therefore we need to assert ourselves as well.

This telephone conversation with McKie Campbell was the second in a series of conference calls being arranged by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy between Senators and their constituents about climate change policy.  For more information, contact the Bard Center for Environmental Policy at climate@bard.edu, or visit our website.  Calls are scheduled for New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida.

A home with rooftop solar panels Los Angeles, California. From Flickr.com

This is exactly the kind of incentive that people need to expand solar technology. Many scientists and researchers say that solar technology is best implemented on an individual home basis. With legislation like this, homeowners will have a greater incentive to invest in the expensive technology.

We’ve heard of the homeowners that get paid by the power companies, but it is usually an amount so small that it rarely covers the cost of equipment. If new legislation can double that number, like it has in California, then more and more people may turn to solar.

Just as in agriculture, getting people to switch to a more expensive energy efficient technology requires financial incentive. California has taken a step in the right direction. Let’s hope other parts of the country follow suit.

But, will this bill make a big difference for regular homeowners? Is 5% high enough? Is this something the rest of the country should implement? Share your thoughts below.

Among the panelists were leaders and experts of the global justice movement like Martin Khor from the South Centre, Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians, Victor Menotti of the International Forum on Globalization, Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and Gopal Dayaneni from Movement Generation. You can view the full event online here, or by clicking the image below. I’ll discuss some highlights and possible movement-building lessons.

Movement-Melding in Copenhagen

The experts left very little doubt that the fight to avert climate catastrophe is the fight for the direction of the global economy.

Climate justice + development justice + trade justice = true global justice.

If, as panelists noted, the climate negotiations will eventually lead to the rewriting of the global economy then global institutions like the WTO and other unfair institutions of trade and development will have to change dramatically. For decades, social movements have resisted the globalization agenda of the international corporate elite. With the threat of climate change, the world has been forced to pursue fundamental economic transformation. That transformation presents tremendous opportunity, and so comprises the silver lining on the dark, looming clouds of possible climate catastrophe.

Problem is that too few of us in the global north are connecting the dots between the struggles of the global justice movement with the current fight for a fair climate deal.

Before I say more, here are some highlights from a few leaders and thinkers who are:

- Early on Maude Barlow makes the explicit connection between the unfair and anti-democratic process that played out in Copenhagen as parallel to what we see at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. Rich countries ganging up and bullying poorer countries, divide and conquer tactics, and ‘green room’ -esque VIP meetings where the ‘real’ decision are made, without voices of poorer countries or marginalized peoples (min 7:00).

- Martin Khor makes clear that by proposing to cap emissions, that leaders are “negotiating not only the future of humanity and the earth, we are also negotiating the distribution of the future GNP of the world” [emphasis mine]. Because the five major issues areas in the working groups “are no longer about climate science” only, shifting the global economic and development paradigm is explicitly required to avert catastrophic climate change. He then criticizes the exclusive and anti-democratic process, reminiscent of the WTO process, that produced the controversial Copenhagen Accord (beginning around min 11:30).

- Victoria Tauli-Corpuz points out the importance of the historic first inclusion of language regarding human rights and land rights of indigenous and local peoples in the climate negotiation document. Also, like the movement for global economic justice at the WTO, she emphasized the wisdom of using an inside-outside strategy to influence the negotiations inside AND support the social movement mobilizations outside the convention center (min 31:00).

- Victor Menotti notes how the each of the food, finance and climate crises has been caused by neoliberal economic orthodoxy that privileges corporate power over democratic governments, and by capture of global institutions like the WTO by corporate interests (min 38:00).

A spirited discussion followed, delving into a wide array of issues:

- Gopal Dayaneni insisting that a real solution will require indigenous and local peoples winning back rights over their land, ecologies and development paths (min 44:00).

- Maude Barlow pointing out the hypocrisy of countries negotiating new trade deals that further enshrine corporate economic development paradigm that relies on over-consumption and over-extraction, while purporting to green themselves in the climate negotiations (min 51:00).

- Victoria Tauli-Corpuz takes on the question of climate debt, and how indigenous peoples have led the fight to solve the problem by opposing fighting corporate extraction projects and with them the “dominant economic development paradigm” that facilitate it (min 1:06).

- Victor Menotti relates how lessons from fighting the WTO teach that we need to call out corporate power and spotlight who wins and who loses under proposed climate solutions and their corollary economic underpinnings. If we recognize that its not a poor country vs. rich country dynamic, but a fight of corporate elites vs. the rest of us (min 1:13).

The overall upshot of the panel was that the proper venue for solving the climate crisis is the U.N. Indubitably. Just solutions will not emerge from a more exclusive and corporate-captured venues like the G-20 or WTO.

Global Justice Movement at the Millennium

The lesson here for movement builders and campaigners is another. These experts, all steeped in peoples’ movements for a more just and sustainable world, call us to act now for justice beyond Copenhagen, and beyond the next climate summit in Mexico. To answer their call we must fundamentally challenge what Victoria Tauli-Corpuz calls the “dominant economic development paradigm” – one that not only causes global warming emissions but one that sews the very injustices and inequities that Gopal Dayaneni points out are what enable over-consumption and over-extraction.

Thus a good climate agreement is not, as Martin Khor mentions, just a matter of climate science or emissions targets. It never really was. There are those within the alter-globalization movement that highlight the need to turnaround failed trade policy in order to actually stave off climate change, and the youth climate movement does as good a job as anyone linking the struggles of people in the global south with those in the global north.

But to create sufficient pressure behind real solutions we’ve still got a long way to go. We need to find common strategies for building a revitalized movement for global justice – a progressively more holistic and vibrant one that bridges all the gaps that have divided us. That means organizing to confront every single global institution that promotes the “dominant economic development paradigm” like the WTO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (and other development banks), and fight back against corporate control of our governments, especially the G-20 governments key to governance of each of these institutions.

The global justice and climate movements, then, are inextricably linked. In fact they are one in the same. and we must seize the moment and unite. Tuesday night’s visionary voices from the global south, and others representing marginalized people in the global north, proclaimed the need for just this sort of solidarity. We must continue to push the climate fight beyond the science and into the realm of global social, economic, and ecological justice for regular working people across the globe.

We in the global north need to step it up while the planet still hangs in the balance. You can almost feel the forces aligning, and hear the ranks forming. If we continue to grow together, an unprecedentedly vibrant movement awaits us.

(Originally posted at EyesOnTrade.Org)

When discussing climate change, liberals love to cite facts. We believe facts can’t be argued with. Scientific facts are neither political manipulations nor individual opinions. They are well-reasoned, neutral statements that will convince any rational person – provided the person understands them. This is what we believe. But have you ever tried to “lay out the facts” to a climate skeptic? You probably didn’t get very far. Likely, regardless of what you said, they countered with some unfounded argument. In the end they weren’t swayed and you were left frustrated because they couldn’t see the logic behind your brilliant argument. Why did your facts fail to convince them? After much thought, I believe I have an answer.

George Lakoff, a renowned cognitive linguist and political thinker, asserts that people reject facts that are outside the frame with which they see the world. That frame, or framework, is often created by values that are instilled during childhood. The frame ensures that we see the world, and only the world, that agrees with our values. In other words, we block out facts and reasonable arguments to ensure that our core values are justified. The frame alters the reality that our senses detect.

As a result, facts that convince a liberal will not convince a conservative.  To convince a conservative that climate change is an emergency worthy of their attention, we have two options: We can either attempt to change the conservatives’ framework or we must tailor our argument to fit within their existing framework. Continuing to argue only from our liberal framework will not help us achieve our aims.

Of our two options, it would be a massive undertaking to change the way conservatives view the world. While this might be an ideal goal, it is not realistic. It is not as challenging, however, to tailor our argument so that a conservative can see our arguments as logical: we must specifically shape our arguments to fit their framework.

I developed the following suggestions on shifting climate change discourse after reading Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant. (I highly recommend this book). In each instance I state the current, ineffective phrase that we use now, followed by more appropriate language for our target audience.

Climate Change > Climate Security

Climate change doesn’t sound bad; maybe winters and summers will be a little warmer. Climate change means much more than slightly warming seasons, but does the term “climate change” accurately portray the catastrophe we are heading towards? No, not in any shape or form. Climate change and global warming are weak terms when used on their own. We need stronger phrases. We should begin using a term such as “climate security” to explain what we are advocating. Instead of saying “climate change is a problem that must be dealt with,” we should say that “when we do not have climate security, we jeopardize our economy, our safety, and the prosperity of our children’s generation.” The second sentence conjures up a more severe picture that demands immediate action. Conservatives and climate skeptics, though not always one and the same, are usually ardent about protecting the security of our country. We need to engage them using appropriate language. One could also state the above sentence in the positive: “We must secure and stabilize our climate in order to protect the safety of our nation, its economy, and its future generations. We must allow our children to have the same rich opportunities that we currently benefit from.” The people we want to convince generally think in terms of strength, security, and power. When we remember this, we communicate more effectively.

Emission Reduction Targets > Energy Advancement Targets

These two phrases mean the same thing yet evoke different thoughts. Emission reduction targets sound as though they will harm our economy because companies will be forced to lower production rates or install new costly technologies. Americans are generally proud individuals who want their country to continue its growth as a superpower. They certainly do not want to hear about the need for reducing our growth. Therefore we must talk in the positive. Energy advancement is not about less of anything. It is about more. We need more energy and more production to sustain our economy; it is, therefore, important to advance our energy technologies – our energy advancement.

“Cap-and-Trade” > Harnessing the Power of the Market

People believe that energy costs will go up and mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend, will hurt our economy. The rise in energy costs will supposedly hurt energy companies as well as consumers. Instead of discussing mechanisms, we must talk of “new open markets that will allow us to invest wisely with the expectation of reliable returns.” This sounds far better than creating a mechanism to offset emissions. And it appeals to free market conservatives – a valuable target audiance.

These examples show how to reword individual phrases to make them more palatable to conservatives and independents who do not yet support climate change initiatives. There is also the need for broader reframing. Shifting the entire debate is substantially more difficult than revising catch phrases. However, if we begin to use different terms and phrases that better portray our opinions, we will naturally begin to reframe the big picture. We should no longer talk about the “environmental effects” of climate change but rather discuss “the danger to humans if we fail to achieve climate security.” We might think it is our duty to protect the climate and the environment, but conservatives will never buy this argument because protecting the environment falls outside their current framework. Thus it is ineffective and a waste of time to advocate an environmentally based argument. Human safety, on the other hand, is a value that we all share. This value must be emphasized.

All of my rephrasing is targeted at conservatives who place national security high on their list of values. This is a generally effective value to emphasize. Undoubtedly some liberals will cringe at my suggestion to use terms associated with war and national security. They say we must shift away from the war paradigm that grips common day rhetoric. I disagree. Liberals generally tend away from speech idioms of war because it goes against their values. But conservatives understand and become energized when they hear these particular buzz words. Now is not the time to emphasize our own values and forgo any chance of converting moderately conservative climate skeptics. It is not wrong to exploit the terms that the Right created. It is an intelligent and effective strategy.

However, this isn’t the only way to reframe climate discussions. Many great minds puzzle over how to reframe climate issues in order to gain even broader public support. There is no consensus yet on how to do this. Discussing climate change in terms of security and human safety will help attract the attention of certain people. But we must also target other audiences, always keeping in mind the values of the audience we are targeting.

My overarching suggestion is to know your audience and then use language that appeals directly to them. Don’t use the language of a liberal when targeting a “family-values” conservative. Use their language: discuss values, respect, and family importance. When talking with a conservative war veteran, talk in terms of national security. But always remember, the words you would naturally choose to talk about climate change are words that would convince you. You don’t need convincing. A conservative will not be swayed by arguments that would sway you. Identify the values of your audience, and target those values relentlessly. We must stop using arguments designed by and for liberals and begin using language that fits within the framework of our target audience. Only then will we gain broader public support.

Finally, we will not develop an overall messaging campaign overnight. It is not realistic. It will take time, but that is ok. Our messaging campaign will commence when we begin using more effective language. Our new phrases will slowly gain popular momentum. Conservatives will listen to us because our arguments will no longer be “liberal” arguments. We will be using language that fits within their framework. It is time that our voices are heard by the people who need to hear them.

Confessional time. I am in a rocky relationship with Jim Prentice.

I should have seen it coming, I really should have, as I suppose all good relationships must come to an end. Your true colours showed through, Jim, and not in a good, Cyndi Lauper kind of way.

The Honourable Jim Prentice began his speech to members of the University of Calgary School of Public Policy and School of Business on February 1 - though, at first, I could have sworn he was right next to me whispering sweet nothings in my ear – with soothing words about the federal government’s energy and climate change: Continue reading ‘I liked Cyndi Lauper’s colour scheme better.’

The discussion needs to shift, Adamo continued, to climate legislation as national security from an oil perspective to a technology perspective.  There’s widespread worry in the American public about our dependency on foreign oil – but we don’t want to turn this into a reliance on foreign manufacturers for solar, wind, and other renewable energy technologies when we have the capacity and expertise to develop and innovate in these areas within our own nation.

Unsurprisingly, both Adamo and Yates feel that Michigan is primed to take over the role of clean energy manufacturer.  According to Yates, green jobs have recently grown at a rate of 9.1% overall and 10.7% in Michigan. Yates pointed out that Michigan offers a tremendous physical, intellectual, and working infrastructure for clean tech industries to invest in.

Students from Michigan submitted questions for both Adamo and Yates, quizzing them on their bosses’ policies on everything from agricultural subsidies to fee and dividend, from EPA Clean Air Act regulation of CO2 to global regulation.

This last issue is particularly relevant in light of the recent climate change talks in Copenhagen, in which much of the discussion revolved around equity and the role developing nations need to play in comparison to developed nations.  What should the United States do if other countries refuse to impose controls on greenhouse gases?  According to Yates, Senator Levin has consistently argued that the best way to deal with global climate change is through global interaction – and, along with other Senators, has sent a letter to Obama outlining a number of principles to do this.  She finds it heartening that China and India have both submitted their commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions – but points to the continued need for action to occur now.  Bills currently under consideration in the Senate have a variety of mechanisms to encourage other nations and trading partners to impose limits – one bill stipulates that international offsets should only be sold (to the US at least) from countries that are taking action to reduce either in a multi- or bilateral agreement; another would only provide new clean energy or energy efficiency technologies to those that agree to reduce GHG emissions; and a third would impose a sort of import tax on goods imported from countries that haven’t yet taken action.

Today’s discussion was the first in a series of discussions hosted by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy in the “Let’s Talk” initiative. Similar calls are being scheduled throughout the United States – giving students an opportunity to ask questions of their elected representatives about the issues surrounding climate policy that are important to them.  For more information, or to participate in this initiative, visit http://www.bard.edu/cep/lets_talk, or e-mail the Let’s Talk team at climate@bard.edu.

Coming up next …. a conversation with McKie Campbell, speaking about Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski’s policies on climate and environment.