400 ppm and Growing--DANGER!!!

It's official.  On May 9, 2013, the level of the infamous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has reached 400 ppm, the highest level in all of human history.  This record-high level has not been reached since at least 2 million years ago, and possibly even 10 million years ago.  Scientists consider this a scary trend since the increase in CO2 levels is still accelerating and if unchecked can bring catastrophic climate change in the not-too-distant future after crossing the "climate tipping point."  And there is no longer any reasonable doubt that this increase is essentially 100% due to human activity.  We are literally cooking the planet, and we will all pay a heavy price for it if we continue to do so.

The climate change deniers are flat-out wrong since it has been a matter of scientific consensus since at least the 1990s. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We absolutely need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm.  If we don't do it soon, the result can easily become catastrophic and irreversible.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy.  However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax.  The tax rate would be low at first (e.g. $10/ton) but will gradually rise every year.  Yes, prices for many things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase and possibly even come out ahead. The average American would in fact completely break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) consume less energy than average will effectively pay less, while the energy hogs will effectively pay more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term).  Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.  Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources such as solar and wind.

We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta.  It also helps preserve biodiversity. 

We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP.  Nuclear power is not a substitute for renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we still need some sort of continuous power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW.  Right now.

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation.  It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used).  We believe more liberty is the answer, not less.   But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once.  We cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite the fact that growth is now uneconomic) is also part of the problem.  Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had, and it is the ideology of the cancer cell.  Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now.  We ignore it at our own peril. 

What is the Best Tobacco Policy?

Cigarettes have been in the news a lot these days, mostly as a result of the recent push to raise the smoking age from 18 to 21 in NYC as well as New York State. We have already noted (on Twenty-One Debunked) that we oppose such a plan, for many of the same reasons that we oppose the 21 drinking age.  However, the more basic question of what to do about tobacco in general is seldom discussed, and the debate over whether the minimum age should be 18 or 21 is really just window-dressing and a convenient distraction from the real issue.

It is a well-known fact that tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in the world, and that cigarettes are the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it.  The death toll is roughly six million people per year worldwide, with nearly half a million of them in the USA alone.  As historian Robert N. Proctor repeatedly notes in his book Golden Holocaust, the merchants of death known as tobacco companies have not only designed the world's deadliest product (and most addictive drug) but willfully lied about its dangers while making it far more dangerous (and addictive) than it has to be.  He actually makes an excellent case for banning cigarettes completely, and one cannot simply dismiss him as just another puritanical prohibitionist.  For example, he points out that not only are cigarettes the deadliest artifact of human civilization, they are defective by design (killing more people than they need to), they are not particularly useful, and they are not environmentally sustainable.  And unlike alcohol or cannabis, cigarettes are not a recreational drug since the vast majority of smokers want to quit.  Clearly, we can agree that if alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all currently legal and we had to pick one of them to ban, tobacco would have to be it since it is the least useful and most harmful of the three.

While the TSAP believes that a (relatively) tobacco-free world would most likely be better overall than the one we live in now, we do not believe that a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products is the best way to achieve such a goal, particularly in a country like the USA.  Given our nation's bitter experience with alcohol Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs, there would be many foreseeable unintended consequences (black markets, crime, etc.) with such an approach, albeit not quite as severe.  Virtually all serious endgame proposals for tobacco involve a gradual phase-out of some sort, though there is some disagreement on the best way to do it and how to define "victory."

As of 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP currently supports is to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level.  Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero.  Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously.  In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week."  This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself.  Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point.   Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and roll-your-own tobacco.  That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future.

The TSAP also recommends the following measures be taken as well:

• Ban the use of additives in cigarettes, especially those that are harmful or increase the addictiveness of tobacco.
• Ban the use of any radioactive fertilizers or harmful pesticides for growing tobacco.
• Improve the quality control standards for tobacco products to be at least as high as for food.
• End all government subsidies for tobacco farming and production.
• Divest completely from Big Tobacco at all levels of government.
• Vigorously enforce the current age limit of 18 for tobacco sales to achieve 100% retailer compliance. 
• Continue to allow widespread availability of reduced-harm tobacco and nicotine products (i.e. snus, electronic cigarettes, etc.) so that smokers can easily switch to less dangerous alternatives.
• Improve education and smoking cessation programs, funded by tobacco tax revenues.
• Give out free nicotine patches, gum, etc. to any smokers who want to quit.  NYC already does this. 

At the same time, the TSAP most certainly does NOT support outdoor smoking bans or any other policy that treats smokers like criminals or second-class citizens.  Smokers are NOT the villains here, as that dubious honor belongs to the merchants of death known as tobacco companies.  In fact, we have repeatedly pointed out that, far from being a drain on society, smokers actually save society money in the long run since they more than pay their way as far as taxes go.  Cigarette taxes, especially in NYC where they are extremely high, have basically become a "reverse Robin Hood" way to rob from the poor and give to the rich, since smoking has increasingly become a poor man's vice.  And the wide disparity in cigarette taxes across states has led to a serious black market for untaxed/low-tax/counterfeit/stolen cigarettes, with the main beneficiaries being organized crime syndicates and even terrorists.  Thus, we recommend that the handful of states with cigarette taxes higher than $2.00/pack reduce their tax to $2.00/pack or lower, and the states with taxes of less than $1.00/pack raise it to $1.00-$2.00/pack.  NYC should cut its tax in half.  At the federal level, we recommend no further tax hikes, but a national price floor of $5.00/pack including tax to discourage smuggling.

So that is basically the TSAP tobacco policy as of 2013.  Except for our new endgame strategy, our views on tobacco-related issues have really not changed significantly since our founding in 2009.

The tobacco industry has dug its own grave.  Time to push them in there.