We’re at a Dangerous Climate Crossroads - Here’s How We Can Save the Planet

As President Obama tours the Arctic to raise awareness about global warming, we’re getting new evidence about just how dire a situation our planet is in.

In preparation for this fall’s big climate talks in Paris, 56 countries have come out with their own national targets for cutting greenhouse gasses.

And while a bunch of countries getting together and taking action against CO2 emissions certainly sounds like a good thing, there’s a catch.

According to new data from the Climate Action Tracker, the targets those 56 countries have come out with would result in an atmospheric temperature rise of 3.1 degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial levels by the end of the century.

Since the official goal of this year’s climate talks is to prevent warming from exceeding the very dangerous level of 2 degrees Celsius, this means that the current national targets are, well, inadequate, to say the least.

That’s a really big deal.

After we cross the 2 degrees Celsius tipping point, global warming will lock in with devastating consequences for every single living thing on this planet.

This could happen as soon as a few decades.

Michael Mann, a frequent guest on this program and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, estimates that we only have until 2036 -- 21 years -- to prevent the Earth’s temperature from warming to 2 degrees above where it was before we started using fossil fuels.

And here’s the thing, even that 2 degree Celsius benchmark might be not be enough to hold off environmental devastation on a scale we haven’t seen in millennia.

Two degrees Celsius warming is what the world’s climate negotiators have decided is “possible” and “acceptable,” but according to former NASA scientists James Hansen, even that little warming is a recipe for disaster.

He explained why in a recent interview with Australian radio.

Hansen now says we have to limit ourselves to 1 degrees Celsius warming - a number we’re already dangerously close to reaching.

So time really is running out to save the planet.

At this point, there's really only one thing we can do to prevent a total climate catastrophe: we must keep carbon in the ground.

And the best way to keep carbon in the ground is to put a price on it.

Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the only industry in the world that doesn’t have to pay to clean up its own waste.

Instead, these guys pass the costs of that waste (carbon pollution) on to the rest of us in the form of what economists call "negative externalities.”

Some examples of “negative externalities” include things like the cost of cleaning up from climate-change-driven severe weather events, the cost of pollution-related health problems, and the cost to local economies of fishing grounds devastated by ocean acidification.

Because the fossil fuel fat-cats like Exxon and the Kochs just pass the costs of these externalities on to you and me to pay the bill, while getting an estimated $5.3 trillion in subsidies every year, the fossil fuel industry is artificially profitable and artificially competitive.

Oil and gas are only cheaper than wind and solar because their market price doesn’t reflect the damage they do to our planet and our society.

But if their market price did take into account this damage, then the fossil fuel industry would immediately lose out to renewables that are actually much, much cheaper than gas, coal, or oil.

Which is why President Obama or his successor should put propose a national carbon tax and make the fossil fuel industry and billionaires pay to dispose of their own trash.

Even a small $10-per-ton national carbon tax would cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 28 percent of 2005 levels, save tens of thousands of lives, and, if the proceeds were given back to We The People like Alaska’s permanent fund, could help jump-start the renewable energy industry.

This isn’t complicated.

It’s economics 101.

So if President Obama really wants to beef up his climate legacy, he should do more than just visit some melting glaciers in Alaska.

He should start working right now on the one thing that will really take the fight Big Oil: a national carbon tax.


chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 7 years 38 weeks ago

I wish Thom would keep emphasizing the rebate part of the tax and rebate policy. It would alleviate the disastrous economic effect of a carbon tax alone.

cccccttttt 7 years 38 weeks ago

Admire Tom's well presented efforts.

However, suggest political action is a waste of time and money:

---huge sums of money are yet to be made in carbon fuels

---residents of world urban centers like LA, Mexico City, and Beijing go about life

in filthy air in complete denial.

---when have nations ever agreed on any single policy especially

if they have to pay.

Rather, suggest using ones limited time energy in a more focused approach:

[support research labs working on fusion energy]

We will suffer the next few decades of greed and folly, but when practical

fusion devices emerge, the darkness will lift!


Willie W's picture
Willie W 7 years 38 weeks ago

Addressing climate change is a joke. Thom said that the oil and coal industries got over five trillion dollars in subsidies every year from governments. So now the government is going to take some of it back in carbon taxes? Fines? Bribes? What ever! It's funny that these big shots can buy politicians using money that was given to them by politicians. Don't hear much in the debates about big oil subsidies when everyone's spinning their unique ideas on how to balance the budget. Their silence is bought and paid for, same as the media silence. I don't see any meaningful changes happening any time soon.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 7 years 38 weeks ago

Willie W -- A couple of things, I would like to point out. The carbon tax would passed on to the consumer. The usefulness is that the consumer would look more seriously at electrical cars and other such things.

The other thing is we need to keep pointing out that balancing the budget will destroy the economy. Andrew Jackson demonstrated that in a big way. FDR tried it for 3 months (maybe for votes) and immediately saw the negative effect on the economy. One can look at the level of unemployment and detect when FDR tried to balance the budget. Ravi Batra has pointed out that every time the deficit becomes small the DOW crashes. Notice that is every time. He said this long before the latest crash in the DOW. Obama has been reducing the deficit every year since he has been in office and now look at the DOW. Everyone keeps blaming it on China. That is, everyone but Richard Wolff.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 7 years 37 weeks ago

Getting rid of depletion allowances might be a place to start.


Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
Michael Toms, Founding President, New Dimensions World Broadcasting Network and author of A Time For Choices: Deep Dialogues for Deep Democracy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Tom Hayden, author of The Long Sixties and director, Peace and Justice Resource Center.