Terry Tamminen on the youth activists at Copenhagen’s COP15 talks:

Other than the anti-war campaigns of the 1970s, it’s hard to recall a movement that has been so embraced, even motivated, by the world’s youth. Solving the climate crisis is not the only thing these young people are focused on–hey are also inventing, embracing, and sharing the solutions. Twitter, Facebook, Badoo, Bebo, MySpace, and Flickr are among the most active social networks that are ablaze with discussion about climate change and tips of what to buy, what to avoid, and other ways to reduce their carbon footprints.

Why should policymakers, investors, or businesspeople care about this? Because these are the voters and consumers of the next 50 years and they’re very serious about this low carbon thing. A marketing exec once explained to me why the 18-34 age group was so important – - they will buy several cars, for example, in their remaining lifetime, while someone at age 55 may only buy one more. He wanted those youthful eyes, ears, and brand loyalty focused on his products and spent millions to understand that coveted age group. Ditto the politicians, as they think of future elections.

The obvious questions provoke the obvious answers. From my reading of the literature over the last month, and from everything I have learned at Copenhagen, there can be no doubt that the scientific consensus on climate change is consistent and overwhelming. So it leaves us with a quandary. All of these researchers, across a half dozen academic disciplines, are either right or they are terribly wrong. If wrong it calls into question our entire cult of modernity which in good measure is based on our faith and confidence in the scientific method and the brilliance of the technologies it has spawned. If however the scientists are right, as I believe them to be, then it begs an obvious question. If, as they suggest, the entire fate of the world hangs in the balance, if a rise in sea levels promises to inundate much of the Nile Delta, if by 2030 nearly half of the world’s population will live without certain access to water, if the glaciers of the Andes and the Tibetan plateau, source of life for much of Asia, will be largely be gone, then why has not our response been in any way commensurate with the severity of the crisis? Why have we not responded with even a modicum of the intensity of devotion and sacrifice that we have brought to other moments of national and international crisis? Why have we not fully mobilized, declared the equivalent of war, with the potential consequences of global warming fully in mind? According to the Chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who spoke last evening at the conference and dinner I attended at Kornborg Castle, the climate crisis could be fully mitigated and the world’s economy transformed with an investment equivalent to some 3% of global GNP. During World War 2, the United States devoted 38% GDP to military victory. Nobody complained. I don’t understand this disconnect and over the next couple of days I hope to find some answers.

In a dramatic break with recent policy, the Environmental Protection Agency has just formally announced plans to regulate climate changing pollution under the Clean Air Act, declaring clear evidence that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.” President Obama has pledged to attend the second week of the COP15 climate change talks in Copenhagen; which is widely viewed as a positive indication of an international agreement to take significant steps in curbing greenhouse gasses.

The EPA has indicated a willingness to let Congress take the reins, but with Congressional Republicans and business interests having already said they will fight any new legislation, this latest ruling from the EPA illustrates the federal government’s intention to take the steps necessary to move forward. In The Climate Solutions Consensus, David Blockstein and Leo Weigman present an agenda for the United States. It incorporates specific recommendations by the nation’s leading scientists, offering solutions that don’t need to wait for new laws. From changing our eating and consumption habits to land use and education, the book addresses controversial topics head-on and provides a clear-cut path to reversing the driving factors behind climate change.

Some industries are getting ahead of the game. People on the front lines of the energy revolution are ready to create the world’s most powerful solar energy systems and most sophisticated hybrid cars to save the planet. Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, written by Representative Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks, not only introduces the pioneers behind these innovations but it also presents a pathway towards energy independence and a cleaner future.

A clean energy future doesn’t have to break the bank. Climate 2030, published by The Union of Concerned Scientists, shows that meeting strict emissions cap regulations is not only feasible, it can be done cost-effectively. Within a timeframe of 2030, the book’s authors visualize a set of smart environmental policies that save consumers and businesses money on their energy bills, while also keeping the economy moving forward.

These are important first steps, and ones that Island Press authors have been advocating for decades. We urge you to learn more about the climate change debate and follow our updates on the COP15 conference.

This post was originally sent to our email subscribers. Sign up for the next one!

Terry Tamminen has a new post on Fast Company’s blog about the carbon taxes and cap and trade:

Climate negotiators favor a system where either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade market system would have businesses and consumers pay the full cost of energy, technology, and consumption of scarce natural resources. Some states in the northeast have already added that cost to electricity and have earned billions of dollars that they can now use to pay for the externalities, like higher costs for health care or crumbling coastal barriers. If the world moves to this more candid accounting, what else will cost more–or less–in such a zero sum game?

Read it all here.

Over on Post Carbon, Juliet Eilperin notes the EPA’s changing stance on greenhouse gases:

Making a pitch to an international community that has demanded bolder action from Washington on climate change, [Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa] Jackson detailed a list of measures ranging from stricter fuel economy standards to the promotion of renewable offshore energy projects.

But Jackson’s biggest applause line came when we said she was “proud” of the EPA’s declaration Monday that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. “That is a decision that has been a long time coming,” she said to a packed crowd in the U.S. Pavillion.

Jackson said that in light of the scientific finding, the EPA is obligated “to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”

Read more about Jackson’s speech here.

Marc Ambinder has a point-by-point rebuttal of Sarah Palin’s latest column in the Washington Post:

Remember, the “revelation” was born from an potentially illegal e-mail hack. “So-called” — untrue. These are experts. Their science has been validated, independently. Their “actions” here consist of insulting climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and peer-reviewed journals. The “concerns” that Palin speaks of are the result of years of accumulated science denialism that now, conveniently, has been seemingly “validated” by the fog of a grand conspiracy, suddenly revealed.

Read the rest here.

Today on Post Carbon, Juliet Eilperin writes:

Back in the mid-1990s, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected this would give the world a decent shot at avoiding dangerous climate impacts.

Most leaders have signed off on this goal, including members of the G-20. However some scientists, environmentalists and leaders from vulnerable island nations–including the IPCC’s chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri–now say it’s too modest. Any new climate deal should identify 1.5 degrees Celsius–or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit–as the upper limit of a global temperature increase, according to this camp. There’s even a billboard on Copenhagen’s streets featuring a polar bear and the slogan, “2 Degrees is Too Much.”

Unfortunately, she also points out that there’s very little chance we’ll hit that goal:

We’re headed for an increase of 3.8 degrees Celsius, or 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit, if every nation fulfilled its current climate pledge.

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration formally declared Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation.

The move, announced by Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson, comes as the largest climate change conference in history gets underway in Copenhagen. It finalizes an initial “endangerment finding” by the government in April.

Read the rest here.

Over at Fast Company, Terry Tamminen notes the effects that tailpipes might have on human behavior in advance of COP15:

New research from Cairo shows that rats become more belligerent when exposed to gasoline fumes and tailpipe pollution. If the same thing happens to humans, that might explain why the guy in the Escalade was waving his Smith & Wesson on the freeway in L.A. the other night, but it may also highlight the co-benefits of a low-carbon economy.

While all of us probably feel like trapped rats from time to time, a more relevant recent study, published in the British medical journal Lancet, reports that cutting carbon emissions could save human lives. For example, using cleaner cars in London, England (like those now mandated by California law) would save 160 total person-years of life per million residents every year. In Delhi, India, such a switch would save nearly 1,700 total person-years of life per million people each year, largely because of reduced lung disease, heat stress, and related heart problems.

As the focus in Copenhagen next week turns towards how to pay for cutting the carbon, it may be useful to be honest about the real cost of business-as-usual. These health studies certainly show that we’re already paying for the cost of burning fossil fuels, but not all of those costs are included in the price at the pump or on the electric meter.

Tens of thousands of modern-day crusaders, charlatans, Nobel laureates, CEOs, quick-buck artists, earnest politicians, and assorted movie extras of every conceivable socio-political-ethnic-economic background will descend on Copenhagen for the next three weeks to participate in an orgy of carbon-bashing and flag-waving. The goal will be to agree on a blueprint – - not quite the precise Earth owner’s manual that some had hoped for, but at least a quick-start guide – - for reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough so that the world avoids the most expensive and unpredictable consequences of climate change.

As the Danes clean up the mess when the party’s over on December 18th, the question becomes “what does this all mean on December 19th and beyond?” Starting on that day, as the heavy lifting begins for global negotiators who will be filling in the details of that blueprint, we will be inundated with advice, predictions, and hand-wringing on all sides. Here’s a clip-and-save cheat sheet, suitable for framing or taping to your refrigerator, that will save you time – - and money – - as you try to crack the “Carbon Code” for yourself, your business, and your investments:

• December 2009: Conference of the Parties #15 (“COP15”) in Copenhagen. “Parties” to the deals struck so far by the United Nations’ climate club will meet to create a political framework that punts the details of how to reduce carbon (and how fast) to negotiators who will hammer this out over the next 12 months. President Obama will speak to the party of Parties December 9th.
• January 2010: President Obama and Congress will begin serious work on a Senate version of the House bill (HR 2454) already passed (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454).
• January 2010: At least 10,000 US facilities must begin measuring carbon emissions under new USEPA rules (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghg_faq.html)
• January 2010: California starts “early action” regulations/incentives to pick the low-hanging carbon fruit and get some quick reductions. Other states and the feds will follow this, so pay attention even if you’re not in the Golden State (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/ccea.htm)
• April 2010: Earth Day signing of a US climate bill. The bill will set modest targets for reducing carbon and will authorize the creation of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade market. To get the votes, the bill will be full of pork for nuclear, “clean coal”, renewables, and more farm biofuel subsidies. Most significantly, the bill will allow states, like California, to set more stringent limits and use both regulation and carbon markets to accomplish their goals.
• June 2010: Dozens of states that have developed “climate action plans” begin to impose limits on carbon through energy efficiency measures, renewable energy mandates, and participation in a regional cap-and-trade program. Although each measure and each state’s program will roll out on various timelines, you should know what’s happening in states where you do business by this time. Keep track of it all in real time at: http://www.seventhgenerationadvisors.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=19
• Fall 2010: Expect Walmart to announce its requirements for sustainability labels on products, including carbon footprints. If you are part of the Walmart supply chain – - and what company is not? – - hire staff or a consultant to start measuring, whether or not you are required to do so by USEPA, Chinese authorities, or anyone else.
• December 2010: COP 16 in Mexico City. World leaders adopt the deal that will replace the Kyoto Protocol. All this means is that the UN is organizing each nation’s response to climate change under one roof, but the regulations and low-carbon economic opportunities that matter will still be found in your own backyard.
• January 2011: California adopts final rules and regulations for its cap-and-trade system (working with a dozen other western states and Canadian provinces) for launch in 2012.
• March 2011: US facilities must report 2010 carbon emissions to USEPA (and annually thereafter).
• 2012: Walmart has a carbon footprint label on every product it sells; myriad carbon-busting rules go into effect in states; regional carbon cap-and-trade markets expand in the US. Carbon now has a price globally.

These are just a few of the key dates to add to your carbon calendar, but if you pay attention to these milestones, everything else that comes from government or commerce will make sense. And if you happen to be in Denmark in December, don’t be surprised when the bar conversation turns from “what’s your sign?” to “what’s your carbon footprint?”