We love recycling.

We think people who take reusable mugs to coffee shops for their morning fix deserve a medal.

We offer a tip of the cap to those who eat food grown locally, eschewing plums from Chile.

There’s little doubt that screwing in energy-saving super-efficient light bulbs is a great thing.

And yet …

Laudatory as these individual actions may be, they’re not enough. Not even close, in fact. The planet won’t be saved by individual valor.

We need, rather, smart regulatory frameworks to attack carbon dioxide emissions at their source, even as all of us think of ways to “go green” in our own lives. We need, ultimately, Congress to act and deploy either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to deal with climate change.

Washington moves according to its own logic, of course. And that’s why the Clean Power Ordinance, as advocates have dubbed a bill several aldermen are co-sponsoring in Chicago’s city council, is so important.

As we noted in our story this week, the bill targets particulate matter, a pollutant especially damaging to public health, and carbon dioxide, the pollutant responsible for climate change, spewed out by two power plants in Pilsen and Little Village.

Neither uses the most up-to-date technology to scrub out dangerous emissions, according to the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

The Clean Power Ordinance would tighten the screws on what’s allowed to come out of Fisk and Crawford. And if enacted, it would send a shot over the bow in support of a national climate change and pollution law.

Think about this as you’re out there on April 17, at the city’s annual clean and green day, raking mulch and tossing detritus.

Such days are great neighborhood unifiers and make communities look good as spring and summer unfold.

But unless we get a law like the Clean Power Ordinance — and eventually something from Washington — clean and greens aren’t enough.

If you see aldermen or their staff out there on April 17, tell them to support the Clean Power Ordinance.

Doubly lobby the mayor to that effect if he’s making the rounds this Saturday.

---

By Hai Do from Pilsen
Posted: 05/17/2011 1:08 AM

[4/4] 3. Distraction. Cap-and-Trade with its loopholes and promises will make people forget about solving the problem of climate change with real solutions. Right now, the U.S. subsidizes fossil fuels at more than twice the rate of renewables. We shouldn't be subsidizing fossil fuels at all. According to the Story of Stuff producers, we should be focusing on real solutions like solid caps, strong laws, and citizen action. Source: http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

---

By Hai Do from Pilsen
Posted: 05/17/2011 1:07 AM

[3/4] Then that can be traded as a permit for creation of more carbon. The danger with offsets is that it\'s very hard to guarantee that the permits represent a real reduction of carbon. In Indonesia, Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests, planted palm trees and got offset permits for it. Something is fundamentally wrong with cap-and-trade here. Companies can even get an offset permit by claiming that they planned to expand 200% but instead expand 100%. (continued)

---

By Hai Do from Pilsen
Posted: 05/17/2011 1:03 AM

[2/4] Problems: 1. Free permits. Most of the industrial polluters would be granted permits for free. In Europe, they tried the gap-and-giveaway system and energy prices became very volatile. Carbon emissions actually went up. A real solution would put that money to work stopping climate change. We could transition to a clean energy economy, pay back our ecological footprint, etc. 2. Offsetting. Offset permits are created when a company supposedly removes or reduces carbon. (continued)

---

By Hai Do from Pilsen
Posted: 05/17/2011 1:02 AM

[1/4] I assume it was Ben Meyerson, Chicago Journal Editor, who wrote, "We need, ultimately, Congress to act and deploy either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to deal with climate change." Ben, have you researched cap-and-trade? It has serious flaws. Cap-and-trade consists of a cap on all carbon emissions. Then government would distribute carbon permits, which could be traded on an open market. There are several problems with the specifics of this policy, though. (continued)

---

By noramarie from Printer's Row
Posted: 04/17/2010 4:25 PM

I completely agree with the editorial staff on this one. Individual actions can get the momentum going, but we need government action to make transformative changes happen. And beyond the Clean Power Ordinance, I agree that we need Congress to pass clean energy legislation that would encourage the kinds of efforts that Chicago's aldermen are making and create opportunities for economic growth through carbon cuts. Let's add a call for Senate clean energy action our local plans.