Climate Lecture

In class today, a girl turned around and asked if anyone wanted to go to a Climate Lecture this afternoon. Considering how big a headache my hw has been giving me, I figured, why not? The University of Copenhagen has been hosting a series of lectures on climate change by prestigious individuals in preparation for COP15. Professor Diana Liverman, Director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, had a lot to say on how local governments have an impact on combatting climate change. In lieu of rehashing the lecture, I'll try to summarize important points.

First of all, she divided the U.S. into regions, where each grouping of states produced as much emissions as some countries (for example, New England emits as much CO2 has Canada). Already, that puts you in perspective of exactly HOW MUCH of an impact the States have.

She talked A LOT about California, how we did many things right in making strict measures and policies to reduce our GHG emissions, making me enormously proud to be an exchange student listening to a climate lecture in Copenhagen :-) An important point that California represents, however, is how much control does a state have vs national? Some may remember last year when CA wanted to make their car regulations more strict, and the US EPA vetoed it because it would effect American car sales because Japanese cars were so much more efficient. Obviously, that means that American car companies should build better cars, right? Fortunately, the veto was overturned and CA had its way. Dr. Liverman also pointed out that because CA is so powerful, it has a ripple effect. As in, if CA regulates the energy efficiency of certain products that it buys from other states, like Nevada, these states have to follow these more stringent policies for themselves in order to remain in business with CA. It's all fine and dandy if CA and the West Coast are making an effort, but what about the other states that don't care? That's where the Federal government comes in. They need to enforce stringent CO2 emissions policies on the other states.

Now what about cities? If you're from wonderful smoggy Southern California, which can pretty much be its own city considering how much development there is, you understand that cities are a major emittor of GHGs. However, cities don't have much control. Can you imagine our mayor trying to regulate LAX by saying that only planes that emit a certain ghg level are allowed to land? Apparently, cities can play a part by forming partnerships, or by investing in city development, but I think it's a bit too late to redevelop the City of Angels into a City of Sustainability. And many people would love to contribute more to sustainability, but their city does not make that a viable option. Everyone knows how much I'm dying for a car, because otherwise, getting around LA is impossible. Public transit isn't efficient, and biking is a death wish.

Non-Governmental Organizations. My dream employer. Do they have an impact on climate emissions? The sad truth, not really. They all have different agendas and are all focused on different things. Oftentimes, they usually can't agree on anything. (her rant about a group of NGOs in a meeting not making a decision reminded me sadly of activists in Santa Cruz). Mayhap certain ones that focus on pressuring governments into stringent programs have an impact.

I suppose I should conclude with "what is the best way to combat climate change?" I have always been a firm believer in citizen action, and still am. I have also always believed in the system (the most dreaded word in a Santa Cruz activists vocabulary). The system means governmental regulations on companies, on cities, EVERYBODY. Because we can't fight this battle alone.