Looming Climate Catastrophe Must Drive Policy Debate
Global Warming Response Act Emissions Reductions Must Be Focus
Could the media and policymakers be catching up to the activists? If so, the Foundation funding can’t be far behind.
There is a series of set up stories running for NJ Spotlight’s Pipeline Roundtable tomorrow.
Yesterday’s story by WHYY focused on Pennsylvania fracking –
The gas industry sure has done a great PR job by changing the subject from NY State’s fracking ban, which was based on public health risks – that framing and narrative were quickly revised by industry propaganda.
Today Tom Johnson lays out the NJ story in NJ Spotlight:
Tom’s piece today is pretty good, but, as I’ve been complaining for some time now fails to put the infrastructure and energy policy debate in the proper climate context.
It also also allows some energy industry propaganda to go unchallenged by facts or rebuttal by environmentalists.
So, here are a few thoughts and links to documents that I think should be driving the debate, from the climate perspective:
Finance capital is a scarce resource.
By investing billions of dollars in gas infrastructure (wells, pipelines, power plants, etc) we are diverting necessary capital from efficiency and renewables.
These infrastructure debates MUST begin with the imperative of the climate catastrophe and the need to make a rapid transition to a low carbon future.
In addition to diverting scarce capital, the economics of “cheap” gas undermine investments in efficiency and renewables.
This dual economic dynamic is a disaster and virtually guarantees irreversible and catastrophic climate change.
The jobs and “manufacturing renaissance” arguments are all spin no substance.
There’s no “manufacturing renaissance” – look at the data:
Local pipeline jobs are greatly exaggerated – alternative energy is more job producing:
And I wonder how Senator Sweeney feels about his South Jersey constituents having to pay higher monthly gas and electric bills for the SJG Pinelands/BL England fiasco?