FOR MORE INFORMATION: STEVE VALK, STEVE.VALK@CITIZENSCLIMATELOBBY.ORG; 404.769.7461
Give Congress the courage to act on climate change
It wasn’t supposed to happen this fast. When scientists predicted that global warming would
increase the frequency and severity of extreme-weather events, we thought they were talking
about decades from now, perhaps even mid-century. Their warnings, however, are no longer just
predictions of catastrophes to come, but the new reality that will only get worse unless we reduce
the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Every other week, it seems, brings another weather-related catastrophe that the scientific
community connects to our changing climate. The latest disaster hit Minot, ND,1 where
floodwaters from the Souris River rose four feet higher than the previous record set in 1881.
About 12,000 people were forced to evacuate, many losing their homes.
A recent three-part series in Scientific American explores the connection between extreme
weather and climate change:
“Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were ‘consistent’ with the
predictions of climate change. No more. ‘Now we can make the statement that particular
events would not have happened the same way without global warming,’ says Kevin
Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.”2
The flooding in Minot joins a list of other major disasters this year that “would not have
happened the same way without global warming”:

Wildfires in Texas3 and Arizona,4 exacerbated by drought conditions that have been
upgraded from “extreme” to “exceptional,” have scorched more than 3 million acres.

In a 24-hour period April 27-28, more than 200 tornadoes5 touched down in the South,
killing more than 300. On May 21, the nation’s deadliest tornado in six decades hit
Joplin, MO, where the death toll eventually climbed past 150.6
1
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/floods/2011-06-26-flooding-North-Dakota-Souris-River-Minot_n.htm
2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=extreme-weather-and-climate-change
3
http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2011-06-20/texas-wildfires-burn-3-million-acres
4
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/0609/Monster-wildfire-in-Arizona-A-glimpse-of-what-climatechange-could-bring
5
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-usa-weather-losses-idUSTRE7484OU20110509

Record floodwaters rolled down the Mississippi River in April and May, the result of
heavy snows that melted and heavier than normal rainfall. Damage estimates7 range
between $2 billion and $4 billion.
The extreme-weather events happening this year ought to be viewed as the “Pearl Harbor
moment” on climate change that propels our elected officials to take action. But Congress appears
far from ready to declare war on carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for
warming the planet.
We’ve been given a taste of what can happen in a world that is now 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit
warmer than it was a century ago. How much worse will it get if we fail to reduce our greenhouse
gas emissions? Why is there no urgency in Washington to tackle the problem?
Perhaps members of Congress are paralyzed with a different fear, the fear that they’ll lose their
jobs if coal and oil interests withhold their campaign contributions or, worse, give their money to
opponents in the next election. We must help them find their courage.
For the good of our nation and our world – indeed for the survival of civilization – Republicans
and Democrats must come together to enact legislation that puts a price on carbon sufficient to
wean our nation off fossil fuels.
One solution both sides should be able to agree on is known as carbon fee and dividend8: A
steadily-rising fee is placed on carbon-based fuels so that coal, oil and gas become more
expensive sources of energy than wind, solar and other carbonless methods. Revenue from the fee
is given back equally to all households to offset increased energy costs.
Republicans, reluctant to enact any law that would increase the size of government, could
embrace this revenue-neutral approach. The carbon “dividend” or “green check” would prove
popular with the public, making it politically viable.
What would also be politically viable are the millions of jobs in clean energy and energy
efficiency that would be created by transitioning to a green economy9. And as fossil fuel
emissions go down, cleaner air will reduce the respiratory problems associated with air pollution.
Our lessening dependency on foreign oil will also improve our economic and strategic security.
“To do” lists generally fall into two categories: Things we should do and things we have to do,
the latter getting priority. Until now, pricing carbon was on the “should do” list, something that
would create jobs and decrease our dependency on foreign oil. The devastating disasters this year,
and their connection to climate change, has moved pricing carbon from the “should do” list to the
“have to do” list.
6
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/joplin-tornado-death-toll-total_n_876526.html
7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/billion-dollar-weather-disasters-in-us-off-torecord-setting-start-in-2011/2011/06/17/AGwtFuYH_blog.html
8
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/FeeAndDividendLegProposal.pdf
9
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/building-a-green-economy.pdf
QUOTABLE
“All of a sudden we're not talking about
polar bears or the Maldives any more.
Climate change translates into mold on my
baby's crib. We're talking about homes and
schools and churches and all the places
that got hit.”
— Amanda Little, Nashville-based
author, on the 2010 flood in her city
“Maybe it's just easier, psychologically, to
swallow the lie that these scientists who
devote their lives to their work are actually
greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists
— and that we should instead put our faith
in the pseudoscientists financed by large
carbon polluters whose business plans
depend on their continued use of the
atmospheric commons as a place to dump
their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without
limit or constraint, free of charge.”
THE SCIENCE
On May 12, the National Research Council
reported that “the significant risks that climate
change poses to human society and the
environment provide a strong motivation to
move ahead with substantial response
efforts.”10
From the Vatican, a new report from the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences11
recommends that we “reduce worldwide
carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using
all means possible to meet ambitious
international global warming targets and
ensure the long-term stability of the climate
system.”
— Al Gore, Rolling Stone, June 22
"Our figures indicate a trend towards an
increase in extreme weather events that
can only be fully explained by climate
change. It's as if the weather machine had
changed up a gear.”
— Peter Höppe, head of the Geo Risks
Research/Corporate Climate Center
at Munich Re, one of the world’s
leading re-insurers
“In this Congress, obviously, legislation to
address climate change will have to be
introduced by a Republican if you expect it
to go anywhere, and we visited a number
of GOP offices that expressed interest in
this proposal. If we keep saying ‘Wait ‘til
the next Congress,’ eventually it will be too
late to maintain a livable world. We need to
take steps now.”
— Mark Reynolds, executive director,
Citizens Climate Lobby
THE ECONOMICS
While some critics claim that putting a price
on carbon will hurt the economy and kill jobs,
quite the opposite is true. “Building a Green
Economy,”12 a report from Citizens Climate
Lobby, shows that the shift away from fossil
fuels will produce more jobs and stimulate the
economy.
10
http://americasclimatechoices.org/
11
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/PAS_Glaci
er_110511_final.pdf
12
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/building-agreen-economy.pdf