Kerry - Lieberman Climate Bill

[Bruce551]

The Federal Gov. doesn't have a clear policy on "Clean Energy". Senator Kerry's Climate (Energy) Bill would setup the necessary framework for the reduction of Carbon emissions in USA. This would bring in more investment to Clean Energy Companies from the private sector.

Senate climate bill unveiled but fate uncertain

8:21pm EDT

By Richard Cowan

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64A6BY20100512?type=politicsNews

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new Senate bill aimed at battling global warming would impose new limits on carbon dioxide pollution from factories, utilities and vehicles, while expanding heavy-polluting domestic oil production and nuclear power generation.

The legislation, which is certain to face tough opposition from Republicans and even some Democrats, will be formally unveiled Wednesday by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.

There is no guarantee the bill will even be debated this year and it is unclear whether a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will hamper the legislation or prompt a more urgent look at U.S. energy and environmental policy.

A summary of the long-delayed bill, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, contained few surprises as many details had leaked out over the past several weeks.

At the core of the bill is a goal to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020. But the summary did not address several questions, such as how new pollution permits would be distributed or sold to electric power utilities.

The bill also contains tax and loan guarantee incentives to expand nuclear power generation. Offshore oil drilling also would get a new boost from Washington.

Both steps are aimed at building more support from senators than a climate-only bill would get.

But in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that began in April, the proposal includes protections for coastal states that do not want oil drilling off their shores.

The climate bill would be Kerry's counteroffer to the House of Representatives, which passed a somewhat different version of climate control legislation nearly a year ago.

It aims to back commitments President Barack Obama made to world leaders in December that the United States would get serious for the first time about cutting emissions, which many experts say will wreak havoc on the planet if left unchecked.

About 6.4 billion metric tons of the gases are sent into the atmosphere each year by coal- and oil-burning electric utilities, factories, refineries and vehicles in the United States, a level of pollution that is second only to China.

Like the House-passed bill, the Kerry-Lieberman bill tries to cut carbon emissions by more than 80 percent by 2050.

It is expected to require utilities to obtain a dwindling number of pollution permits for every ton of carbon they emit starting in 2013, similar to the broader cap-and-trade system passed by the House. Those permits would be traded on a regulated market.

European countries, as well as a group of northeastern U.S. states, already have cap-and-trade programs in place with trading done regionally. If passed, the federal legislation would end state and regional programs.

'FRESH EYES'

Aware of broadly held Senate skepticism over the bill's chances this year, Kerry called on his colleagues "to look at it with fresh eyes."

November's congressional elections are likely to result in a dilution of Democrats' power in Congress, making it harder to approve sweeping energy and environmental legislation in 2011.

"Everyone knows this is Congress's last, best chance to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation," Kerry said. If it fails, he added, "Congress will be rendered incapable of solving this issue."

Kerry has pumped sweeteners into the legislation -- from incentives to expand nuclear power capacity to federal aid for developing "clean coal" -- in a gambit to lure the backing of big business and ultimately Senate Republicans.

Many utilities with big investments in low-carbon nuclear power, natural gas or wind and solar power hope to benefit from a crackdown on greenhouse gases.

Utilities such as FPL Group, Duke Energy and Exelon have lobbied for the climate bill, as has General Electric, a manufacturer of clean coal and natural gas systems for power plants and wind turbines.

Climate bill supporters cast the initiative as a major step toward reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil and, in the process, shoring up national security. They argue it also would plant the seeds for green jobs during tough economic times, as fossil fuels would be replaced by solar, wind and other clean energy projects.

But a fundamental shift in the kinds of energy used also pits coal and oil states in the Midwest and Southeast against coastal and other interior states that already are positioned to cash in on clean energy industries.

WHERE IS LINDSEY GRAHAM?

The Senate launch of the bill likely will be overshadowed by an absent player -- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham -- who spent about six months collaborating with Kerry and Lieberman, only to drop out late in the game.

Graham spoiled an April 26 unveiling of the legislation, protesting Senate Democratic leaders' plans to put immigration reform on a fast-track this election year. He complained the maneuver meant the climate bill would not get serious consideration in an already tight legislative calendar.

By last week, with oil gushing from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, Graham was calling for a "pause" in climate control efforts. He said he feared the oil slick, which threatens the shores of four southern U.S. states, would ruin chances for expanding offshore oil drilling in the climate bill.

As a result, Kerry's efforts to get Graham back on board collapsed.

It is unknown whether the work Kerry and Lieberman are touting will interest any of the Senate's 40 other Republicans. A handful are needed to ensure passage.

The battle Lieberman and Kerry will wage comes as scientists see what they say is mounting evidence of global warming: oceans rapidly becoming more acidic, polar ice sheets collapsing, mountain glaciers melting and sea levels rising.

(Editing by Russell Blinch and John O'Callaghan)

The voters support the Climate Bill

Gulf spill could boost energy reform

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/poll_gulf_spill_has_created_bi.html

I've just obtained an interesting new poll that suggests Dems have a real opportunity to seize on the Gulf spill to make energy reform a major issue, perhaps even in the midterm elections.

The poll strongly supports the view, expressed by Al Gore and many others, that the spill represents a real chance to achieve a fundamental shift in the public conversation on energy reform. It shows how absurd it is that so many in the Senate have decided that the spill should make reform less likely.

The poll -- done for Clean Energy Works, a coalition of environmental groups, by Joel Benenson, who's also Obama's chief pollster -- was sent over by a source, and you can read it right here. Key findings:

* Overall, 61 percent of 2010 voters support and just 31 percent oppose a bill "that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like oil."

* 54 percent would be more likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted for the bill (just 30 percent would be less likely to re-elect).

* 51 percent would be less likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted against the bill (just 30 percent would be more likely).

* 39 percent of voters now say they are more likely to support it in the wake of the oil spill.

Also: The poll tested a key argument by reform foes -- that it would hike gas prices and hurt middle class families -- and found only 31 percent agree.

"The American people think it's more urgent to take action now," Benenson tells me. "Americans don't find credible the scare tactics of those who remain opposed to this. It's a potentially potent issue with Amerian voters. It is kind of issue that for many key constituencies defines the basic values of their elected officials and candidates."

To be sure, one key difficulty still remains: To what extent should expanded offshore drilling still be part of the energy reform solution? Right now, it looks as if the compromise that senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman will unveil later this week will contain a watered down version of it, in order to keep Senate liberals aboard.

It behooves Dems to sort out a compromise energy reform package they can support and start moving on it now. If the above numbers are to be believed, there's a real opportunity to turn the Gulf spill into what Gore called a "consciousness-shifting event." Right now.

By Greg Sargent | May 10, 2010; 1:24 PM ET

Categories: 2010 elections , Climate change , Senate Dems

[Bruce551]

Introducing the American Power Act: On strategy and substance

by Senator John Kerry

12 May 2010 7:13 AM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-12-introducing-the-american-power-act-on-the-strategy-and-substance

Busy day here -- started early with some curtain-raising morning television to kick off the discussion a bit about the American Power Act that Joe Lieberman [i-Conn.] and a unique coalition are talking about later today.

But sometimes those morning-show interviews are a bit of a reminder of how much detailed discussion we lose when we're crammed into a two- or three- or five-minute back-and-forth, which is especially tough on an issue like a comprehensive approach to climate and energy.

Which brings me to why I wanted to come by Grist -- because of the in-depth discussions you've already had here again and again on this issue.

But -- and here's the but -- I don't want to swing by and just sort of preach to the choir. We're true believers -- we already get the imperative of the threat our addiction to carbon-emitting energy poses. You know the science, you know the reality, and so do I.

So, what I do want to talk about is this: We need to take a deep dive together on the Senate strategy, and on the real details of the bill that make it important for the things you and I care about. So, I hope I bring something new to that discussion that we can use as a jumping-off point.

First, the Senate dynamic -- the politics of this place. I want to be candid about this, and I do so with a record on this issue that I think earned me the spurs to say this. We've been at this a long time.

Al Gore and I held the Senate's first climate-change hearings in the Commerce Committee way back in 1988. Since then, precious little progress has been made and ground has been lost internationally, all while the science has grown more compelling.

I can barely even count any more the number of international summits I've attended, or press conferences we've held after losing climate-change votes in the Senate where our message was, “Next year, we can get this done -- don't give up on the United States or the Senate.†Two Congresses ago, we had 38 votes for a bill. Last Congress, we had 54 votes for cloture out of 60 needed -- and we said then -- me, Joe, Barbara Boxer [D-Calif.] -- that this Congress we could get to 60 and pass a bill.

So what have we done? A lot of meeting and listening -- between me, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], hundreds of meetings one-on-one with our colleagues to find out what they needed to support a bill. And I absolutely believe we're closer than ever to getting across the finish line -- but make no mistake, it remains difficult, even with President Obama in the White House, and even with the House of Representatives having passed their bill by the slimmest of margins last summer.

But we're going full-steam ahead because, in my judgment, this may be the last and certainly the best chance for the Senate to act, especially with the fact that I think the next Senate -- given a 2012 presidential campaign added to the dynamic and a lot of new senators -- is going to be less likely than this one to find a path to the 60 votes needed for passage. So we've got to get it done this year.

Hear me out on this one -- you know where I've been and continue to be on all the major environmental fights since even before I became a senator. As a lieutenant governor, I focused on acid rain and we laid the groundwork for the successful fight on the Clean Air Act in 1990, with the support of the first President Bush and bipartisan support from Congress. In stark contrast to that effort to find a bipartisan way forward, I led the successful filibuster -- against the urging of many in our Democratic caucus -- to defeat the second President Bush's plan to drill in and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I point to these twin examples because I think they're evidence that I know when to dig in and fight, and I also know when and how to find the path to getting something done across the aisle.

And here's what I can tell you: A comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me -- true believers -- can't pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionately I fight on it.

No, it's got to be an effort that makes my colleagues -- and that has to include Republicans so we can get to 60 -- comfortable about the jobs we're going to create and the protection for consumers and the national security benefits -- and it has to address those pieces on their terms. The good news: I think we got that balance right.

So, the straight scoop on the details, the real down-in-the-weeds details:

First and foremost, this bill creates a major -- mandatory -- pollution-reduction program that sends the needed price signal on carbon, with carbon allowances auctioned in a heavily regulated market that doesn't allow any speculators access. Only corporations that need the pollution allowances can buy them, period. No bank can swoop in and start speculating.

These corporations that buy the allowances can trade them among themselves, but again, no outside entities are allowed, with the minor exception of a few heavily regulated “liquidity providers†who are there to make sure there are always buyers and sellers at any one time. The actions of these providers, however, are tightly controlled, and their profits are extremely limited by the law. There's no Wild West of speculation possible here, just a strict market only open to those who need it.

It will also be a stable market. The American Power Act creates a hard price collar for the sale of carbon allowances. This will cut down on the volatility of the market, especially in the early days, and give investors a clear signal on future prices. We don't let this affect the environmental integrity or jeopardize the pollution reductions we're going for, though. Instead, we hold back a strategic reserve of allowances that we release if the market gets too high to bring down the cost without adding new carbon to our pollution targets.

And, look, creating this pollution-reduction market is incredibly important to do.

We absolutely have to send a price signal to move to a new energy economy. Every business leader I talk to confirms this -- nothing else will get the job done.

Without it, we won't get the certainty we need in our economy that drives the innovation and investment in the clean energy economy. And without that, we won't be able to get a real international agreement, with teeth, to confront the crisis of climate change.

Now, we can't leave American workers exposed, waiting forever for others to join us in the effort to price pollution, because that would force them to compete against countries that have no greenhouse-gas emissions limits. That would just shift pollution abroad rather than reduce it, and in the process, it would cost us jobs.

So we've included a robust, WTO-consistent border-adjustment mechanism in the bill. It's pretty simple: Imports from countries that aren't doing what we're doing will need to pay a fee at the border or we will give our producers the resources they would need to keep from having their production shifted overseas to avoid the cost of polluting.

This will prevent the “carbon leakage†of companies moving production offshore, and it allows American manufacturers to compete on a level playing field with those overseas. And I guarantee that on a level playing field, nobody beats the American worker.

We also want Americans to share in the benefits of this legislation, so the American Power Act -- inspired in part by the great work of Sens. Maria Cantwell [D-Wash.] and Susan Collins [R-Maine] -- sends the bulk of the proceeds from the sale of the pollution allowances back to the American people directly in the form of rebates. None of it stays with or grows government.

Those rebates rise over time until it all goes straight back to Americans.

That's the heart of the bill. I realize there's been a lot of discussion about some other aspects of it, so here are some of the other parts of the bill:

1) Clean Air Act: This part of the bill has generated a lot of commentary and reporting recently, and some of it has just missed the mark. Here's the deal: This bill does not take the EPA out of the mix on regulating carbon. In fact, it strengthens the Clean Air Act by expanding the authority of the EPA and making that authority permanent. First, the entire pollution-reduction program is under the authority of the EPA. The bill specifically requires the EPA to regulate large sources of carbon pollution, but it does not allow it to issue what in many cases would be duplicative regulation of the same sources. Essentially, what the bill says is that EPA should use the program specifically designed for making the deep reductions in carbon pollution called for in the bill.

The bill preserves key Clean Air Act tools for sources not in the program, and it calls on EPA to continue setting tough emission standards to reduce global-warming pollution from cars and trucks. It also continues EPA's ability to set performance standards for old, dirty power plants to make sure they clean up.

2) Offshore drilling: We're in the middle of a catastrophe in the Gulf, and it's important that we fully understand the implications as we move forward. This bill starts that process by tightening current federal law and implementing two major reforms. First, any state can veto drilling less than 75 miles off its border. Second, any new rig will have to be studied for the environmental impact of any potential spill, and any state that is found to be at risk can veto that drilling.

3) State laws: The long-standing efforts of states like California to implement innovative programs around vehicle emissions and other programs will not be affected. The bill does make clear that carbon is a national problem, and that the national policy on carbon needs to be the law of the land. But outside of that specific area, states are still free to pursue the policies that they wish. I've talked with [Massachusetts] Gov. Deval Patrick about this -- Massachusetts has been one of the states ahead of the curve and our bill rewards them -- but like with acid rain, these governors know we ultimately need a national solution.

So -- one more time - would I design every piece of this legislation exactly as it is if I only had to get my vote? Of course not. But that's not the way democracy works. The Senate -- and our caucus -- is a very diverse coalition, from coastal states to Midwestern states to states with large coal reserves. Sixty votes is a tough coalition to put together.

But our planet can't wait for the perfect bill.

We need to get a really good bill now, one that reduces carbon pollution and puts us on a path to a clean energy future.

And if we do this, I know we can get a tough international agreement to deal with this global problem. Those are the two things I remind myself of every day when it comes to this bill.

You've got to keep your eye on the prize. Bottom line:

We're at a crossroads. On one path is clean energy, a more stable climate, and a more prosperous economy with America back in control of our own energy, generating good clean-energy jobs.

On the other is the status quo, which is unsustainable.

Keep that in mind when you look at this bill and engage in the debate.

John Kerry is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts

[Bruce551]

Debate' with Greenpeace on Senate climate bill

Posted: 15 May 2010 09:53 AM PDT

http://www.climateprogress.org/

Democracy Now! has posted a full transcript of what they bill as “Greenpeace v. Center for American Progress: A Debate on the Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill.â€

I don’t really consider it a debate when the other person basically agrees on the problem and simply wants a much stronger bill.

JUAN GONZALEZ: After many months of debate and delay, on Wednesday Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled a 987-page draft of a climate and energy bill that aims to cut emissions, reduce oil [imports], and create energy-related jobs. President Obama welcomed the bill in a statement that noted the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico provided another reason to, quote, “redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies.†He added that he hoped to pass climate legislation by the year’s end.

Last month, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the original partners in drawing up the bill, dropped out of the effort.

Senator Kerry was on Fox News Wednesday explaining the provisions of the American Power Act.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: It’s a bill that will increase America’s energy independence. For the first time in thirty years, we can actually reduce our foreign oil dependency by about 50 percent. And that’s very, very significant. We’re putting $100 million a day into Iran today. We believe we can change that with this bill by encouraging domestic natural gas production, conversion to natural gas vehicles, the Pickens Plan, to take big trucks and begin to put natural gas engines in them. In addition, we reduce our gap with China and India and make America more competitive. We have the broadest base of business support for this in history. We have utilities, oil company. Major executives of big corporations in America all believe that we can do this and must do this, and we’ll create millions of jobs here at home in doing it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: An earlier version of the Senate bill had included incentives to increase domestic offshore oil production. But this was changed in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Now the bill gives states the right to veto any drilling plan that could cause environmental or economic harm.

Senator Kerry was questioned Wednesday by Clean Skies News about how the oil spill has affected the offshore drilling provisions in the legislation.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Give states more power to be able to make a decision about what happens to them, if they’re at risk in that process. But we all know we’re going to continue to drill in America. We’re not going to suddenly stop this overnight. Everybody gets up in the morning; they’ve got to get to work. We drive cars, buses, trucks. That’s our economy. That’s why this bill is so important, because it begins to move us in a place that creates clean fuels, more efficient engines, electric cars, trucks driven by compressed natural gas. All of those are jobs. We have nuclear power. We have natural gas, clean coal technology research—all the things that we need to make America more independent in the production of our energy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on the pros and cons of the proposed climate and energy legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, we now host a debate on the American Power Act.

Phil Radford is executive director of Greenpeace USA. In a statement released Wednesday, he called it, quote, “largely a dirty energy bailout bill.†He joins us from Washington, DC.

And for a more optimistic view of the bill’s potential, we’re joined by Skype by Joseph Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. A former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton administration, he edits the blog “Climate Progress†at climateprogress.org. His latest book is Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Joseph Romm. Why do you like this bill?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, this will be the first bill ever passed by the Senate, if it were to pass, that would put us on a path to get off of fossil fuels. It requires, over four decades, an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

The other critical piece of this—this was something that Senator Kerry emphasized—was we need to pass a bill that enables us to meet our commitment that Obama made at Copenhagen. Pretty much every other country in the world is ready to take action, and we’re the only ones that are holding up a global deal. So if we can pass this bill, there can be a global deal that finally addresses the grave threat posed by global warming. If we can’t pass this bill, then I’m afraid I don’t see much prospect for a global deal.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Phil Radford, your main concerns about the legislation, as reported out by Kerry and Lieberman?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think that this bill possibly jeopardizes a global deal. You have Western Europe committing to cutting pollution by 30 percent below 1990 levels, and this bill cuts it by three. So we’re doing one-tenth of what other countries are planning to do. And that really weak pledge that President Obama made last year in Copenhagen made so many people so angry that it basically blew apart the negotiations.

I think the bill basically just needs to get stronger. The problems are the pollution isn’t cut enough. While the oil spill disaster did take some of the oil provisions out, there are still incentives for states to drill for oil. And then, another crisis just happened. In New Jersey, radioactive tritium just leaked into the aquifer from a nuclear plant. It’s getting in people’s groundwater. Hopefully that disaster can show people that we’re really gambling with our children’s future when we’re giving tens of billions of dollars to nuclear energy in this bill.

AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Romm, your response?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, there’s no question the bill should be stronger, but Phil’s characterization of what happened in Copenhagen is not accurate. The fact is that the Chinese didn’t want to deal, and Obama came in at the last minute and personally negotiated a deal, and he brought a commitment that is matched in this bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. So, if we can pass this bill, there’s a chance at a global deal. But there is no question that—there’s no plan B. There’s no plan B. If this bill doesn’t pass—and this is something that Al Gore has said many times, and so has Senator Kerry—then we’re kind of left with business as usual.

Now, I think it’s important for people to understand that this bill could easily be stronger. And I think it would be great if we could strengthen it on the Senate floor.

But the primary thing we need is a shrinking cap on greenhouse gas emissions and a rising price on pollution. And that is what will incentivize a transition to a clean energy economy. We have—the environmental community has, for decades, tried to figure out how to pass a law that would start shutting down existing dirty coal plants, and they have failed to do so. This is the first bill that’s ever been put before the Senate that has a possible chance of passing that would actually start shutting down existing coal plants.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Phil Radford, several major environmental groups have given some qualified support to this bill. The Environmental Defense Fund put out a statement, said that it contains strong goals for reducing carbon emissions and protecting the climate, significant consumer protections against cost increases, and provisions to boost domestic energy production with environmental safeguards. And also the Natural Resources Defense Council came out and said the draft legislation gets us moving in the right direction. Where do you think that these groups are wrong?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think—I think the tepid endorsement that most environmental groups have given to this bill just reinforces Greenpeace’s argument, which is that this bill has very little to do with what scientists say we need to do. I agree with Joe, this is a step. It’s, at best, a very small baby step.

But the real issue is that we need to cut pollution by about 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2015, and this doesn’t get us anywhere close to that.

And so, while it’s a baby step, Congress is busy negotiating with themselves, when really we just can’t negotiate with physics. We can’t negotiate with the fact that scientists say that if we don’t address this problem really quickly and cut pollution by up to 40 percent within the next five years or so, then we’re likely going to have far less water in the Southeast and in Atlanta for people to drink. We’re likely to lose anywhere from 35 to 50 percent of the world’s species in the next century. And so, while Congress negotiates with itself and decides whether or not they want oil or how many baby steps they take on cutting pollution or whether or not to threaten more aquifers like New Jersey’s with nuclear power, scientiests are saying, “Wait a minute, you can’t negotiate with nature. You need to do something more serious.†And so, I think that’s why you see groups like NRDC and EDF very tepidly say this seems OK. But I think the entire environmental community agrees, if we want to stop global warming, this needs to get much stronger very quickly.

AMY GOODMAN: What, Phil Radford, would be your version of a climate bill? What would satisfy you?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think—I think the first thing is that we just need to take more serious steps to get off of oil. I think that we—by 2020, we could have 30 percent of our fleet plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid. By 2030, we could have 90 percent. We should just get there now.

I think the second thing is that we need to really have a price on carbon. While everybody tells you that there’s a price on carbon, what they don’t tell you is the price on carbon is so low that utilities will be making money off of it, but it won’t drive clean energy investments, because the price is so low.

And so, there are a lot of provisions here that need to be strengthened. The requirements for clean energy in the bills are either equal to or less than what states are already doing. So when people tell you this will produce clean energy jobs in the next decade, it’s just barely or completely untrue. And so, there are a lot of provisions in here, if we really want a bill that addresses the environment and global warming, that need to be significantly strengthened.

AMY GOODMAN: Who has the ears of these senators, Phil Radford?

PHIL RADFORD: Well, I think a lot of people do. I think, unfortunately, they’ve listened too much to the coal companies, to the nuclear companies, to the natural gas companies, to the offshore oil drilling companies. And they haven’t listened enough to the people who say, “You know what? I don’t want my children to grow up in a world where they don’t get to see 35 percent of the world’s species or where we’re still sending our sons and daughters overseas for wars for oil.†And I think if politicians listen more to those people instead of the polluters, we’d have a much stronger bill.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Joe Romm, what about this whole issue of nuclear energy and the incentives for more nuclear plants in the United States, given the—obviously the Obama administration itself supports that, but there are many Americans still who remember that just like maybe it took a few decades for a major oil spill in the Gulf, it was only a few decades ago that we had a major nuclear accident here in the United States at Three Mile Island?

JOSEPH ROMM: Well, anyone who reads my blog “Climate Progress†knows that I don’t think nuclear power is going to be one of the major solutions going forward. It’s just too darn expensive. There are a lot of risks to it, too. But right now, it is just staggeringly expensive. There are, you know, I think, pointless subsidies in this bill for about a dozen new plants. I don’t know if we’ll ever build those plants, because they’re so expensive.

But, you know, the bottom line is, we don’t get to write the bill. And this was something that Senator Kerry made very clear yesterday. It’s not the bill he would write if he were king. But you need to get sixty votes in the Senate. So I think we can all sit here and imagine the perfect bill, but the fact is, in this political climate, it’s going to be very hard to even get this bill passed.

So I guess the choice is, we can sort of keep doing what we’re doing, which is catastrophic, or we can start the process of pushing clean energy into the marketplace, getting off of foreign oil, and putting a penalty on pollution. I’d like to do more, you know, and don’t get me wrong. Anyone who reads “Climate Progress†knows I would like a much stronger bill. But if you don’t start, then you certainly never get anywhere.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. Joseph Romm, editor of “Climate Progress,†senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. And Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

IMO, climate change is a one way street, no tuning back, once CO2 is in the atmosphere it doesn't go way. The "Ocean Conveyor" might absorb some CO2, but will take a 1,000 years.

[Bruce551]

For Every $1 Spent on Energy Efficiency, $2.25 in Jobs April 21, 2010 : 10:01 PM

A new study, from Georgia Tech's Ivan Allen College and Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, once again confirms that building a green economy creates jobs:

“The Georgia Tech-Duke analysis, released Monday, says "aggressive energy-efficiency initiatives" could keep energy consumption in the South's residential, commercial and industrial facilities "from growing over the next twenty years." That could lead to the retirement of 25 gigawatts of older power plants, and render unnecessary the construction of 49 gigawatts of new power plants.â€

“The study also estimates that such measures would generate $2.25 in jobs and economic activity for every $1 spent on making residential, commercial and industrial facilities more energy efficient.â€

http://blog.algore.com/2010/04/for_every_1_spent_on_energy_ef.html

So anyone that says that Thailand needs a Nuk is boldface motherfucking liar.

[DJTX]

Boone Pickens was pushing a plan that would:

•Build capacity to generate up to 22 percent of US electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar generation capacity;

•Build a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;

•Provide incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and

•Use America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel in addition to its other uses in power generation, chemicals, etc.

Yes, Pickens was in it for the money, but none of this got any support in the US Congress, and for certain neither Kerry or Lieberman.

[eagle]

Boone Pickens was pushing a plan that would:

•Build capacity to generate up to 22 percent of US electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar generation capacity;

•Build a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;

•Provide incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and

•Use America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel in addition to its other uses in power generation, chemicals, etc.

Yes, Pickens was in it for the money, but none of this got any support in the US Congress, and for certain neither Kerry or Lieberman.

Who makes the money is key to who gets support. The diesel engine ran on Oil because someone told them it had to. I heard Pickens and it is just what we all need. And put people to work doing it. Do whats right instead of just making money. Wait nawwww cash cash csah

[Bruce551]

House Version Climate Bill

http://www.architecture2030.org/news/news_072209.html

The proof is in the data. There’s simply no comparison. Whereas the 100 nuclear power plants only act as a replacement energy source, the updated building energy codes of Section 201 actually reduce energy consumption, eliminating the need for more plants.

The codes also achieve more than six times the emissions reductions as 100 nuclear power plants. The codes accomplish all of this at a fraction of the cost. Here are the facts:

* Since June 2006, over 60,000 new homes have been designed, built, and certified to meet a minimum 50% energy reduction below the baseline energy code for heating and cooling.

* Studies by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) illustrate that meeting a 30% residential energy consumption reduction target below code will save households in every region of the U.S. between $403 and $612 per year after the cost of efficiency measures is factored in.

* At current energy prices and mortgage interest rates, NREL estimates that the average cost-neutral point for home efficiency upgrades is a 45% energy reduction below code.

The targets in Section 201 are set at a reasonable and beneficial pace for change that will achieve the reductions necessary within the timeline called for by the scientific community. Implementing these targets will reduce building sector energy consumption by:

* 18.35 Quadrillion Btus from projected 2030 levels (the equivalent of approximately two hundred and forty 1000 MW power plants), saving consumers an estimated $218 billion in annual energy bills (2007 dollars),

* 18.7% below 2005 levels by 2030, and

* 40.4% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Nukes won't save us full stop.

[DJTX]

Who makes the money is key to who gets support. The diesel engine ran on Oil because someone told them it had to. I heard Pickens and it is just what we all need. And put people to work doing it. Do whats right instead of just making money. Wait nawwww cash cash csah

Why don't we just call them all fake and get on with it. Them being everyone in congress. Might as well just give Connoco the Senate, Chevron the House, Texaco the Courts, and Exxon the Presidency

[Bruce551]

Why is Obama playing defense?

May 18, 2010

Obama and the Oil Spill

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill has been disappointing.

I say that not because I endorse the dishonest conservative critique that the gulf oil spill is somehow Obama’s Katrina and that he is displaying the same kind of incompetence that George W. Bush did after that hurricane. To the contrary, Obama’s team has done a good job coordinating the cleanup so far. The president has been on top of it from the start.

No, the gulf oil spill is not Obama’s Katrina. It’s his 9/11 — and it is disappointing to see him making the same mistake George W. Bush made with his 9/11. Sept. 11, 2001, was one of those rare seismic events that create the possibility to energize the country to do something really important and lasting that is too hard to do in normal times.

President Bush’s greatest failure was not Iraq, Afghanistan or Katrina. It was his failure of imagination after 9/11 to mobilize the country to get behind a really big initiative for nation-building in America.

I suggested a $1-a-gallon “Patriot Tax†on gasoline that could have simultaneously reduced our deficit, funded basic science research, diminished our dependence on oil imported from the very countries whose citizens carried out 9/11, strengthened the dollar, stimulated energy efficiency and renewable power and slowed climate change. It was the Texas oilman’s Nixon-to-China moment — and Bush blew it.

Had we done that on the morning of 9/12 — when gasoline averaged $1.66 a gallon — the majority of Americans would have signed on. They wanted to do something to strengthen the country they love.

Instead, Bush told a few of us to go to war and the rest of us to go shopping.

So today, gasoline costs twice as much at the pump, with most of that increase going to countries hostile to our values, while China is rapidly becoming the world’s leader in wind, solar, electric cars and high-speed rail. Heck of a job.

Sadly, President Obama seems intent on squandering his environmental 9/11 with a Bush-level failure of imagination.

So far, the Obama policy is: “Think small and carry a big stick.â€

He is rightly hammering the oil company executives. But he is offering no big strategy to end our oil addiction. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have unveiled their new energy bill, which the president has endorsed but only in a very tepid way.

Why tepid? Because Kerry-Lieberman embraces vitally important fees on carbon emissions that the White House is afraid will be exploited by Republicans in the midterm elections.

The G.O.P., they fear, will scream carbon “tax†at every Democrat who would support this bill, and Obama, having already asked Democrats to make a hard vote on health care, feels he can’t ask them for another.

I don’t buy it. In the wake of this historic oil spill, the right policy — a bill to help end our addiction to oil — is also the right politics. The people are ahead of their politicians. So is the U.S. military. There are many conservatives who would embrace a carbon tax or gasoline tax if it was offset by a cut in payroll taxes or corporate taxes, so we could foster new jobs and clean air at the same time.

If Republicans label Democrats “gas taxers†then Democrats should label them “Conservatives for OPEC†or “Friends of BP.†Shill, baby, shill.

Why is Obama playing defense? Just how much oil has to spill into the gulf, how much wildlife has to die, how many radical mosques need to be built with our gasoline purchases to produce more Times Square bombers, before it becomes politically “safe†for the president to say he is going to end our oil addiction?

Indeed, where is “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act� Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does he want? What is his vision? What are his redlines? I don’t know.

But I do know that without a fixed, long-term price on carbon, none of the president’s important investments in clean power research and development will ever scale.

Obama has assembled a great team that could help him make his case — John Holdren, science adviser; Carol Browner, energy adviser; Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner; and Lisa Jackson, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. But they have been badly underutilized by the White House.

I know endangered species that are seen by the public more often than them.

Obama is not just our super-disaster-coordinator. “He is our leader,†noted Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics. “And being a leader means telling the rest of us what’s our job, what do we need to do to make this a transformative moment.â€

Please don’t tell us that our role is just to hate BP or shop in Mississippi or wait for a commission to investigate.

We know the problem, and Americans are ready to be enlisted for a solution.

Of course we can’t eliminate oil exploration or dependence overnight, but can we finally start? Mr. President, your advisers are wrong: Americans are craving your leadership on this issue.

Are you going to channel their good will into something that strengthens our country — “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act†— or are you going squander your 9/11, too?

I hope Obama doesn't WHIMP OUT on this. The Democrats should stand up and do right thing and pass the Energy Bill. The American people will respect them more if they do.

[DJTX]

Are you going to channel their good will into something that strengthens our country — “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act†— or are you going squander your 9/11, too?

Ahh, a Dubya reference.

[Bruce551]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-graph-that-should-be_b_582434.html

The following graph should be on the front page of every single newspaper in the country. It shows, clearly and unambiguously, that the Earth has been heating up over the past 130 years (through the end of 2009), and especially over the past 30 years. And it's getting worse: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just announced that the first four months of 2010 were the hottest in the entire 130-year record for the planet.

Climate change deniers have been trying hard to confuse the public and policy makers about climate change. But their claims about climate science and what we see in the world around us are based on ideology and bad science, not reality. The graph below is reality.

If your body temperature looked like this, you'd be calling your doctor.

If your taxes looked like this (...they don't), you'd be calling your Senator.

If your cell phone bill looked like this, you'd be calling the phone company for a new plan.

Don't be fooled when climate change deniers tell you that place A or place B was cold, or that day 1 or week 2 here or there was cold. The planet as a whole is heating up. A cold winter in Washington doesn't change that.

And don't be fooled when the climate change deniers pretend that the data are no good. They are.

And don't be fooled when they cherry-pick from these data and show you only a few years, or a partial record. That's misleading science.

And don't be fooled when the climate change deniers say this is all natural. It isn't: no natural mechanisms can explain this.

It's time to call our elected leaders and get a new plan.

[Bruce551]

Climate change: The new national security challenge

By Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) - 05/20/10 05:59 PM ET

On August 6, 2001, President George W. Bush famously received an intelligence briefing titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.†Thirty-six days later, al Qaeda terrorists tragically turned threat into reality.

Today, scientists tell us we have a 10-year window — if even that — before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible.

This is our intelligence briefing — it tells us the threat is real and time is not on our side.

If Vice President Cheney can argue that even a 1 percent chance of a terrorist attack is 100 percent justification for preemptive action, then, surely, when scientists tell us that climate change is nearly a 100 percent certainty we should join in an all-out effort to make ourselves safe.

Make no mistake — this is an American national security challenge.

Climate change injects a new major source of chaos, tension and human insecurity into an already volatile world.

It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and staggering human displacement. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.

Anyone who doubts the threat should talk to the 11 retired American admirals and generals who warned in 2007, “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national-security challenges for the United States.â€

In their final national security analysis, the security planners in the Bush Administration recognized climate change among key trends that will shape U.S. defense policy in the coming years.

Just last week, former United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander William Fallon warned that, left unchecked, climate change will “be significantly destabilizing to our future.â€

Another Former CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni put it simply: “We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.â€

Heed the warnings of the National Intelligence Council — the U.S. intelligence community’s think tank — which concluded “global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national-security interests over the next 20 years.â€

Nowhere is the connection between climate and security more direct than in South Asia, home to al Qaeda.

Scientists now warn the Himalayan glaciers, which supply fresh water to a billion people in India and Pakistan, (Thailand) will face severe impacts from climate change. India’s rivers are not only vital to its agriculture but also critical to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, depends on irrigated farming to avoid famine.

At a moment when our government is scrambling to ratchet down tensions across that strategically vital region, climate change could work powerfully in the opposite direction. Failure to tackle climate change risks much more than a ravaged environment: It risks a much more dangerous world and a gravely threatened America.

Unfortunately, not everyone in Washington appreciates the stakes.

If a politician completely dismissed or denied the threat of terrorism, he or she would be sent home in the next election. But there are seemingly few political consequences if you dismiss the science or the threat of climate change.

Here’s one fact that should awaken every rock-ribbed defense hawk to the stakes: There will always be excuses to wait, but every day that Washington fails to price carbon and embrace clean energy, America sends another $100 million to Iran. That’s not a choice America can afford.

Last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and I unveiled the American Power Act, a comprehensive energy and climate approach that sends the price signal on carbon that the market needs to unleash America’s entrepreneurial energy.

In 2010, that is the test of a serious policy to combat climate change.

When our admirals and generals warn that failure to act will put America and the world in danger, it is clearer than ever: This is our August 2001 memo. These are our warnings. The time to act on them is now.

Kerry is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee

Source:

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/99049-climate-change-the-new-national-security-challenge

[Bruce551]

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/23/the-climate-bill-version-of-marry-him-the-case-for-settling-for-mr-good-enough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+(Climate+Progress)

JR: I tend to think Obama plays a bigger role here than Roberts appears to. That said, to the extent that team Obama – including David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel — think Obama won’t actually score points with his base (and might actually lose points!) by using up political capital to pass this bill, then indeed he will be less likely to make the necessary political and rhetorical pivot from the BP oil disaster.

Also, I seriously doubt Obama could hit a 17% cut through executive action alone, even if he were inclined to try – and as important, he would have great difficulty convincing the world his pledge to do so would make a viable international pledge if Congress refuses to act. Indeed, if he doesn’t push very hard for a climate bill, it’ll be hard to believe he would take the politically harder step of trying to meet the target without Congressional support.

As I’ve said many times, the APA meets key criteria for the kind of bill one could reasonably expect Congress to enact right now, which I enumerated in What to look for in the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill.†That would require that the bill help ensure that by the 2020s that we have

* substantially dropped below the business-as-usual emissions path

* started every major business planning for much deeper reductions

* goosed the cleantech venture and financing community

* put in place the entire framework for U.S. climate regulations

* accelerated many tens of gigawatts of different types of low-carbon energy into the marketplace

* put billions into developing advanced low-carbon technology

* started building out the smart, green grid of the 21st century

* trained and created millions of clean energy jobs

* negotiated a working international climate regime

* brought China into the process

I think it does meet them — and it would also finally start shut down existing coal plants as I’ll blog on later this week.

There really is no Plan B. Certainly leaving this to the EPA and a few states won’t achieve most of those, especially the crucial international deal.

If you wait for Mr. Perfect Climate Bill, you’ll be waiting a long, long time. And remember, you can be certain this bill can — and will — be changed to get stronger over time, just as the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Acts have been.

[Bruce551]

President Obama and his science adviser, John Holdren. Source: White House.

Holdren began his remarks yesterday by reminding the audience of the “core conclusions of climate change scienceâ€:

1. “Global climate is changing. On average it is warming at a rate that is highly unusual against the background of natural variation that has always characterized the earth’s climate. It’s warming, on the average, but with that warming come changes in all of the elements of climate and the phenomena related to it. That means rain and snow, atmospheric circulation, ocean currents, storms, all changing in their spacial patterns, in their magnitudes and very importantly changing in their timing.â€

2. â€The main cause of these changes in climate is human activity, above all the combustion of fossil fuels and secondarily tropical deforestation and other land use change. The evidence for the dominance of the human role in what we are experiencing is powerful and I think it should be persuasive to anybody not blinded by wishful thinking who looks at that evidence carefully.â€

3. â€These changes in climate are already harming human well-being. This is not just a problem for our children and grandchildren. It’s a problem for us now. We’re seeing more and bigger floods in regions prone to flooding, we’re seeing more and bigger droughts in regions prone to those, we’re seeing worse wildfires, more powerful storms, worse outbreaks of forest pests like the pine bark beetle and the spruce budworm, more coral bleaching events, increased coastal erosion, damage to structures and roads from thawing permafrost in the far north and a lot more.â€

4. â€The harm is likely to grow to far larger levels if we fail to take aggressive action in this country and in concert with other nations on both mitigation and adaptation.â€

Holdren continued:

“Those conclusions from climate change science are robust. Nothing in the emails hacked from East Anglia University servers, nothing in the lapses in the IPCC’s review process – which by the way have been few in number and minor in importance – nothing in any of that comes close to calling into question the core findings which I have just tersely summarized.

I can assure you that that is President Obama’s view. It is my view. It is Secretary Chu’s view, Secretary Salazar’s view, NOAA Administrator Lubchenco’s view, EPA Administrator Jackson’s view, CEQ Chair Sutley’s view, Energy and Climate Coordinator Browner’s view. It is the Administration’s view. And accordingly, the Administration remains committed to getting comprehensive energy and climate legislation through the Congress this year.â€

Holdren emphasized that we must both curb emissions (a.k.a. mitigation) and prepare for the impacts (a.k.a. adaptation), with equal emphasis on each:

“Mitigation alone won’t work because the climate is already changing. We’re already experiencing impacts from that. Nothing we can do in the mitigation domain can stop it overnight. And so a mitigation-only strategy would be insanity.

Adaptation alone won’t work. Adaptation alone won’t work because adaptation gets more difficult, more expensive, and less effective the larger are the changes in climate to which we are trying to adapt. If you live on an island that is one meter above sea level and the sea level goes up two meters, adaptation is no longer the question. You are dealing with evacuation.

Clearly what we need is enough mitigation to limit changes in climate to a level with which adaptation can largely cope.â€

(That means reduce CO2 output though energy efficiency and renewable energy, shut down coal pants and more mass transit and electric cars.)

When asked by Rick Piltz of Climate Science Watch when the President will address the American people in a speech focused specifically on climate change, Holdren answered:

“I certainly expect that there will be at some point going forward – I can’t tell you exactly when it will be – but there certainly will be a major speech by the President that puts this all together in a forceful way. Because the fact is, it’s true: it’s not enough that I’m out there saying it, that Steve Chu’s out there saying it, that Jane Lubchenco’s out there saying it. It is far, far more powerful when the president says it. And he will do that…The President understands with crystal clarity what a big deal this is….He believes in it. He understands it. And we’re going to get it done.â€

– Nick Sundt

This repost is from the WWF Climate Blog.

What's possible with energy innovation, see

Ernie Moniz (MIT) on the Future of Energy and Climate

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/ernie-moniz-the-future-energy-and-climate

[DJTX]

Part of an article on various industry reactions:

http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/articles/electric-light-power/policy-and_regulation/2010/05/Industry_reactions_on_Kerry_Lieberman_American_Power_Act.html

Industry reactions on Kerry Lieberman American Power Act

May 12, 2010 — Industry groups, utilities and advocacy organizations are already sounding off following the release of the draft legislation put forward by Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.

Summaries of the act spell out a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. To achieve these cuts, the act will reportedly use a carbon cap-and-trade program.

Here is a sampling of what energy sector groups have to say about the American Power Act:

AWEA statement:

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) issued the following statement from AWEA CEO Denise Bode on the bill outlined by Senators Kerry and Lieberman:

“The wind energy industry appreciates the efforts of Senators Kerry and Lieberman to address climate change in their proposal. We look forward to seeing provisions on renewable energy like a strong renewable electricity standard as well as energy efficiency to create new clean energy jobs and avoid carbon in the near term in any package considered by the Senate. We urge Senate leadership to move quickly on strong legislation.â€

Duke Energy statement:

The following is a statement from Duke Energy Chairman, President and CEO Jim Rogers about energy and environmental legislation proposed today by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.

"Senators Kerry and Lieberman's energy bill will create jobs, protect electricity consumers, make our nation's energy supply more secure, and protect our environment. Their leadership — and the efforts of Senator Lindsey Graham to craft this legislation — is extraordinary.

"The legislation can help the U.S. get its economic 'mojo' back. It also sends a clear signal to our nation's innovators that there will be markets for their products and services.

"One of my first jobs after law school was as a consumer advocate in Kentucky, challenging utility rate cases in the 1970s.

"Today, I am here as an advocate for Duke Energy's 4 million customers in five states in the Midwest and Carolinas who depend on coal for the majority of their electricity. I am also here as an advocate for the tens of millions of electricity customers in the 25 states where more than 50 percent of their electricity is generated using coal.

"Senators Kerry and Lieberman's bill helps 'get our transition right' to clean modern energy in a manner that protects American families and protects American factories, both of which depend on affordable power.

"It also gives our electric industry the policy roadmap we need to invest tens of billions of private capital to retire and replace aging power plant fleets with modern, efficient and clean plants.

"The sooner senators from both parties weigh in to constructively debate and move this legislation forward, the faster the private sector can put people to work and help get our economy moving again."...

[Bruce551]

Polluters work with Lisa “fiddle while Nome burns†Murkowski on amendment to thwart EPA GHG regulations that might help save her state

The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress.

This is the year we learn whether anti-science ideologues will be able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill [1]. And that means we’ll learn whether a few moderates who have talked a good game on climate are statesmen- and -women or hypocrites [2].

Last year, Sen. Murkowski could not make up her mind whether she wanted to help preserve her state or destroy it (see “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns [3]“). And again today, as the WSJ reports [4], “Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday left open the possibility that she would seek a vote next week on stopping the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from going forward with regulations to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.â€

Yet, she clearly knows that global warming is devastating Alaska, as she pointed out in a 2006 speech:

When I visit the Native villages in northern Alaska, I ask the village elders what climate change means to them. They don’t speak about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or attempt to debunk the now infamous hockey stick theory. They tell me what they have personally observed over the years….

Warmer, drier air, has allowed the voracious spruce bark beetle to migrate north, moving through our forests in the south-central part of the state. At last count, over three million acres of forest land has been devastated by the beetle, providing dry fuel for outbreaks of enormous wild fires. To give you some perspective, that is almost the size of Connecticut.So we recognize that times have changed, things are changing, and we need a new Arctic policy.

So why is she trying to stop the EPA from regulating carbon pollution (see here [3])? Apparently her new Arctic policy is to delay the EPA from doing its job and regulating CO2. Now the Washington Post reports she had help from lobbyists for big corporations and polluters:

In an interview, Holmstead said of the Murkowski amendment, “I certainly worked with her staff†on the exact phrasing of the measure in September.

“I was involved,†he said, adding that Martella also helped advise Murkowski’s aides on the matter. “The line out of the White House and the administration was that the amendment would block the car and truck rule†setting the first-ever greenhouse gas limits on emissions from vehicles, which are set to become final in March.

Holmstead represents industry interests including Southern Company, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council on climate matters, according to congressional lobbying registration forms, while Martella represents the National Alliance of Forest Owners and the Alliance of Food Associations on the same subject.

I had hoped her amendment meant she will be voting for the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill, given her statements on the subject (see Murkowski calls for tougher energy bill: “Climate legislation must have more immediate environmental benefits†than Waxman-Markey! [5])

But the fact she has been working closely with lobbyists for polluters suggest that her new Arctic policy is the same as the old one — do nothing and let the whole damn thing melt and burn (see “M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F [6]“).

This amendment will see a fight, as the WSJ reports:

Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee sought to rally support for the EPA, rushing out a letter opposing Ms. Murkowski.

“Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse gas emissions,†Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and fellow Democrats wrote in a letter to colleagues. “But repealing an endangerment finding based upon years of work by America’s scientists and public health experts is not appropriate.â€

But seriously, Sen. Murkowski, who could possibly be more endangered from human-caused warming than Alaskans?

Is Murkowski an “anti-science ideologue�

Or is she simply a bought-and-paid-for tool of the fossil fuel corporations, who is simply doing their bidding without regard for either science or ideology?

Article printed from Climate Progress: http://climateprogress.org

URL to article: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/12/polluters-lisa-murkowski-amendment-to-thwart-epa-endangerment-finding-alaska-warming/

[Bruce551]

Five reasons why a comprehensive climate and energy plan beats the energy-only approach

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/

But, knowing that some are still calling for the Senate to think small by passing a bill that just boosts energy production from clean and dirty sources, I thought it would help to outline five reasons why a comprehensive package will do more for national security, the economy, the budget, and the environment than an energy-only bill.

Independent analyses show that a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would:

* Cut U.S. oil imports in half, by reducing our dependence on oil and enabling U.S. producers to maximize the output of aging land-based wells, according to Advanced Resources International. An energy-only bill won't.

* Cut Iran's oil revenues by $100 million. A strong limit on carbon pollution could significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran, which would lose approximately $1.8 trillion worth of oil revenues over the next 40 years. Meanwhile, an energy-only bill would do little to reduce U.S. oil imports beyond opening new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil drilling with all the attendant environmental problems.

* Cut our budget deficit by $24 billion between 2010 and 2019, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An energy-only bill would increase the deficit by $13.5 billion over the same time period, according the CBO's analysis.

* Create about 1.9 million jobs, according to independent analysis by the University of California and further substantiated by a literature review by Third Way. That's nearly four times as many jobs as an energy-only bill would create.

* Cut 2 billion metric tons of global warming pollution from 2005 levels, by 2020. An energy only bill would at best cut just a tenth of that amount, but could also increase pollution levels depending on its details.

Putting price on carbon a will unleash billions of dollars of investment from the private sector in clean energy. And put millions of unemployed back to work.

Failure for the U.S. to put price on carbon will diminish America's standing in world. Letting Big Oil companies "Win", nobody will take America seriously again as a nation that stands for Good and willing to fight against evil.

[Bruce551]

Post BP Disaster: Support grows for comprehensive energy bill that makes carbon polluters pay

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/08/poll-bp-spill-climate-energy-bill/#more-27051

As the BP oil disaster drags on, the public’s desire for clean energy investments and increased oversight of corporate polluters has greatly intensified. CAP’s Daniel J. Weiss [1]and intern Ariel Powell have the important data and charts from a major new poll.

The League of Conservation Voters commissioned a poll by the Benenson Strategy Group, President Obama’s pollster in 2008, to measure public support for clean energy reform in the wake of the BP oil disaster. The central finding is that the public wants real changes in our energy policies [2]:

In the aftermath of the spill, people firmly believe Congress needs to do more than just make BP pay. They understand America needs more than a band-aid; we need real, comprehensive energy reform.

BSG surveyed 800 people nationwide from May 25 to June 1, and compared the results to a similar poll taken in May. The poll found growing support – and intensity – to “regulate corporate polluters†instead of simply to “invest in clean energy sources.â€

Two thirds of the respondents in June supported more regulation on corporate polluters, up from 65 percent in May, less than a month ago. Similarly, 65 percent of people support increased investment in clean energy sources, up from only 57 percent in May. The number of those who feel most strongly about additional regulation increased by nearly twenty percent.

The poll did not pull any punches when asking whether people wanted real reform. Only 23 percent of those polled agree that,

We need to ensure that BP pays every last dime of the damages they’ve caused, but Senators would be wrong to try to use this tragedy to pass some huge new Washington program and job-killing energy tax.

Two-thirds of the respondents agree that,

BP must pay for the damage they’ve done. But our addiction to oil threatens our security and we need more than a band-aid for that. Senators need to pass real reforms to hold polluters accountable and invest in clean energy.

BSG found overwhelming support for an energy bill that would,

Limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas.

Overall, 63% of those likely to vote in 2010 supported it with only 29 percent opposing it.

* Democrats: 81 percent support, 14 percent oppose.

* Independents: 63 percent support, 27 percent oppose.

* Republicans: 45 percent support, 47 percent oppose.

Not only is there broad support for comprehensive clean energy legislation, voters also want solutions now. Those polled were more likely to vote against their Senator if she/he voted to delay action than they were if their Senator simply opposed the energy bill.

* Opposition Message: This “Cap and Tax†bill is nothing more than a job-killing energy tax. It puts a huge new tax on gasoline, driving up the price you pay right at the pump, which is the last thing our economy needs right now. This bill will cost middle class families, who are already struggling to get by, $2,000 a year. First, the bailouts, then healthcare…now Congress wants another $660 billion of taxpayers’ hard earned money for a wasteful Washington program that would kill jobs across the country.

* Support Message: Oil companies and lobbyists have fought energy reform for decades to protect their profits. But American can’t afford another $20 billion oil spill catastrophe. And we can’t afford to keep sending a billion dollars a day overseas for foreign oil. It hurts our economy, helps our enemies and puts our security at risk. Congress needs to stand up to the oil companies and special interests funding their campaigns. They need to pass real reform that puts America back in control of its energy situation – with clean energy sources that are made in America and work for America.

The poll also found that a majority of independent voters – by 2.5 to 1 – “would be more likely to re-elect a bill supporter.â€

Hurray!!! I hope it's true.

[DJTX]

And we can’t afford to keep sending a billion dollars a day overseas for foreign oil.

Didn’t T.Boone Pickens say the same thing a while ago? Look where it got him.

It hurts our economy, helps our enemies and puts our security at risk.

Haven’t they been saying that since the 70’s?

[Bruce551]

Senate Rejects Republican Effort to Thwart Carbon Limits

By CARL HULSE

10 June 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/us/politics/11epa.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases as lawmakers road-tested arguments for a future fight over climate change legislation.

The Senate voted 53-47 to reject an attempt by Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, to block the E.P.A. from imposing new limits on carbon emissions based on its 2009 finding that such gases from industry, vehicles and other sources represent a threat to human health and the environment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/14/804366/-Murkowski-Opposes-Clean-Air-While-Alaska-Erodes

"Murkowski is up for reelection in 2010. So far, she's received $139,400 from the oil and gas sector, ranking third in the Senate, according to Open Secrets. Open Secrets also lists her as ranking second in donations from the electric utility (coal) sector."

From the EPA.

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator of The EPA

Posted: June 7, 2010 10:07 AM

The Murkowski Resolution: A Step Backward for American Clean Energy

In the last 18 months, the United States has taken major steps forward in the transition to a clean energy economy. With historic investments in solar, wind and other innovative renewable energy sources, we are positioned to compete for the clean energy jobs of today and tomorrow, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to cut the pollution that harms our families and the future for our children and grandchildren.

With all those steps forward, now is not the time to take a big step backward, by doubling down on the kinds of energy and environmental policies that keep America addicted to oil -- especially foreign oil. As the President has said, traditional sources of energy have to be part of the mix as we transition to a clean energy economy, but they can't be our only sources.

Our nation's addiction to oil pollutes the air we breathe. It sends billions of our dollars to foreign countries. And it leaves American small businesses and American drivers at the mercy of fuel price spikes, like the $4 a gallon prices we were paying not so long ago. For those reasons and more, we've taken significant steps forward, including a historic effort to make American cars more fuel efficient than ever and cut oil consumption by billions of barrels.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico presents yet another tragic reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction. Our thoughts, prayers and condolences are with the friends and families of the 11 workers lost in the initial explosion.

In the local meetings I've attended since this crisis began, it's clear to see that the entire community feels these losses deeply. It is all the more upsetting, then, that the community's tragedy is compounded by the economic and environmental uncertainty that lies ahead.

The fact that a single accident at a single offshore oil well can cause billions of dollars in damage, result in thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods and threaten an entire region highlights how important it is that we keep moving America forward, towards energy independence. We can't afford to go back.

That is why it is surprising to learn that on June 10, the Senate will vote on legislation that would take us back to the same old failed policies and increase America's oil dependence by billions of barrels. Senator Lisa Murkowski, with strong support from big oil companies and their lobbyists, has proposed a resolution that would drastically weaken our nation's historic effort to increase fuel savings, save consumers money and cut oil consumption from American cars and trucks.

Senator Murkowski's resolution would take away EPA's ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution.

The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence.

It would also gut EPA's authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.

This resolution would take us back to the old energy policies by allowing the polluters to simply pay modest penalties to avoid full compliance with the standards.

As a result, the resolution would increase our dependence on oil by 455 million barrels. That dependence rises to billions of barrels when you factor in the Murkowski resolution's effect on a follow-on program that expands fuel efficiency to heavy-duty vehicles and extends beyond the 2016 model year.

Undermining a program supported by our automakers and autoworkers, environmentalists and governors from across the country seems questionable at any time. But going back to a failed approach and deepening our oil addiction at the very moment a massive spill -- the largest environmental disaster in American history -- is devastating families and businesses and destroying precious wetlands runs contrary to our national interests. It abdicates the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on.

The Murkowski resolution also undermines EPA's common sense strategy for cutting greenhouse gases. Our carefully constructed approach exempts small businesses, homes, farms, and other small sources from regulation. We know that the local coffee shop or the backyard grill is no place to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. We're tackling our largest polluters and calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate law -- one that would extend the protection of small businesses.

At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act or burying our heads in the sand. Our oil addiction is not going to go away unless we act.

A broad coalition of industry, government and environmental advocates believe that it can be done -- and we have a plan in motion.

There is no need for a resolution that would weaken this important program. Now is not the time to go back. Rather than increasing our addiction, we need to keep moving America forward into a clean energy future.

“Climate change is happening,†said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who is a sponsoring a main climate change bill with Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. “The science is convincing and the current pattern of energy consumption is just making a bad problem worse.â€

[DJTX]

Koch Industries Not Only Fueling K St. Lobbying Boom And Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests, But Democrats Too

According to disclosures released earlier this month, oil and natural gas interests are pumping money into lobbying firms to influence climate change legislation at a furious pace. With $82.2 million spent in just the first half of 2009 — compared to $132.2 million in all of 2008 — the industry is on track to set new records.

Unfortunately, as large as this direct lobbying figure is, it represents probably a fraction of the total amount of money the oil and gas industry is pouring into the debate. Some of the money flows straight to candidates and to political action committees. Another huge, largely undisclosed portion goes to what is known as “outside lobbying†efforts — public relations and advertising firms which coordinate a pro-polluter propaganda campaign to influence public opinion. And finally much of the money goes to financing “think-tanks†to produce reports outside the realm of scientific consensus to legitimize skepticism of global warming.

The outside lobbying campaign the industry has embraced this year is the most corrosive because it is based upon deception — and increasingly, hate. Koch Industries, the oil and gas behemoth, bankrolls the astroturf groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. These groups were instrumental in orchestrating the anti-Obama tea party protests, where thousands gathered to display racist signs directed at the President, absurd calls for an impeachment, and more recently, protesters hanging Democratic leaders in effigy. In addition to the anti-Obama protests, these groups provide a useful front for industries as they hire dozens of field staff to spread misinformation about clean energy and bus people around the country to create the guise of public distrust of global warming. Koch has funneled its money not only to these astroturf efforts, but has been a prolific leader in all the aforementioned strategies that industries pursue (Charles Koch even founded the Cato Institute, a leader of global warming skepticism and has spent nearly $4 million in lobbying this year alone).

Although Koch has traditionally given mostly to Republicans, E&E notes that it is giving increasingly to Democrats. In 2009, Koch gave about 28 percent of its contributions to Democrats, compared to about 15 percent last year:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): $5,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): $10,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR): $2,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR): $2,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): $3,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): $6,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX): $3,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX): $4,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): $3,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): $2,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): $6,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): $2,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. David Scott (D-GA): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Henry Teague (D-NM): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

In accepting dirty energy Koch money, these lawmakers are legitimizing the financiers of the anti-Obama tea party effort.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/oil-funding-everyone/

[Bruce551]

The unbearable lameness of being (Rahm and Axelrod)

Posted By Joe On June 13, 2010 @ 4:53 pm In Politics | 6 Comments

When it comes to a cap on carbon, the White House’s strategy for 18 months has been to speak softly and … nothing more. Now the oil spill has forced Obama to ramp up his rhetoric. Does he mean it this time? Either he starts fighting or he doesn’t. The “stealth strategy†is inoperative. The White House can’t fake it any more.

That’s Eric Pooley, former managing editor of Fortune, in an email to me about his new book out, The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth . Anyone interested in climate politics should read it, and I’ll review it later.

Rahm Emanuael and David Axelrod are certainly two of the main reasons that Obama has been far too tame on climate. Obama will apparently be giving his long-awaited prime time BP disaster and energy policy speech on Tuesday [2] — and it could well be make or break for both his presidency and the efforts to address global warming this decade.

Pooley has a short adaptation of his book at The Climate Desk, “Obama’s Climate Complacency: Blame Rahm? [3]†that I excerpt below:

Engulfed by the worst environmental disaster in US history, Barack Obama is trying to change the subject. On May 26 the president pledged to “keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation,†and on June 2 he declared, “The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean-energy future.†Pivoting from oil spill to climate bill makes sense; a mandatory, declining cap on emissions is America’s best chance to wean itself off of fossil fuels—and Obama’s best chance to wring some good out of the catastrophe.

With the Senate expected to vote today on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) call to march in the wrong direction—a resolution stripping the EPA of the power to regulate greenhouse gases—this will clearly be a battle. But what did the president mean by “keep fighting?†As the campaigners on the front lines of the climate war know, Obama has not yet begun to fight.

In the early days of the administration, Al Gore sent the new president a confidential memo explaining why it was essential for the US to pass a climate bill in 2009, before the UN summit in Copenhagen, where the world was supposed to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. If the US delegation arrived empty-handed in Copenhagen, Gore wrote, the world would have no chance to reach a new global deal. American leadership was the crucial and still-missing ingredient. But except for a few days in June 2009 spent whipping the vote for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, the White House has not pushed for the cap. It has been all talk—and even the talk tends to get watered down.

As Earth Day 2009 approached, for example, Obama and his strategists decided that a clean-energy event was needed. When the president prepped for the speech, to be held at a former Maytag factory in Iowa that now makes towers for wind turbines, he said he hadn’t been talking enough about the specifics of climate policy—a complaint that the entire climate community shared. Climate czar Carol Browner saw an opportunity. Two months earlier, she had prepared a policy document based on a short-lived interagency process designed to reach an internal consensus on climate policy, but the process got stalled and the document was languishing on Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s desk. Browner wanted to dust it off and use it to prep the president on a deeper level of policy detail, so the Iowa speech could send signals to Congress about his position on the design of a climate bill.

Emanuel and strategist David Axelrod didn’t think that was a good idea. Better to stick to our basic clean energy message, they argued, and stay out of the policy weeds. It was the sort of fight that happened all the time in the Obama White House, and the True Believers ended up losing every time. “It was lather-rinse-repeat a thousand times in a thousand ways,†said one. “You had this incredible green cabinet of really committed people, but the only thing that really matters is what the president says—so everyone was trying to get words into his mouth. And Rahm was trying to keep the words out of his mouth. It was just a chronic pattern of infighting.†The green cabinet—Browner, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, and others—thought there was a strong case to be made for the clean energy economy. With a little effort and focus, they argued, Obama could marshal the arguments, beat back the opposition, and move the needle of public opinion. “But then there were the Washington operatives on the political and economic teams who did not want to waste a bunch of bullets on some weirdo green crusade when the polling numbers weren’t there, and it would be a bloody battle to take that hill. They said, ‘Let’s go take some other hill.’â€

On Earth Day in Iowa, Obama used a fairly basic set of talking points for the speech, focusing on the energy provisions in the stimulus bill and the need for a carbon cap. He showed what an effective teacher he could be, explaining that America already placed limits on “sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide and other harmful emissions, but we haven’t placed any limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It’s what’s called the carbon loophole,†he said, borrowing a phrase from Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. He framed the issue nicely, sweeping away a false choice that dated back to Reagan: “The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline.†He even gave a mini-tutorial on how a market-based cap would work, while carefully avoiding the term “cap and trade,†which Axelrod had declared radioactive.

The administration was sending mixed signals about whether the president would spend political capital trying to pass the cap. Dealing with the White House required a one-day-at-a-time, God-grant-me-the-serenity mindset, especially when it came to Rahm Emanuel. The chief of staff was an obstacle to climate action.

When corporate and environmental leaders from the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) went to the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing for a late spring 2009 meeting with Emanuel, they could see that he didn’t much care about climate change. What he cared about was winning—acquiring and maintaining presidential power over an eight-year arc. Climate and energy were agenda items to him, pieces on a legislative chessboard; he was only willing to play them in ways that enhanced Obama’s larger objectives. He saw no point in squandering capital on a lost cause. The White House could claim victory if Congress passed a beefy energy bill without a cap—never mind that doing so could torpedo Copenhagen and delay serious green house gas reductions, perhaps for many years. At the USCAP meeting, Emanuel made his views clear: “We want to do this climate bill, but success breeds success,†he said. “We need to put points on the board. We only want to do things that are going to be successful. If the climate bill bogs down, we move on. We’ve got health care.†Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had to move the bill out of committee before the White House would get in the game.

Emanuel had a point. If Waxman couldn’t win a simple committee vote without Obama’s help, no amount of presidential jawboning would carry the day. But his formulation threatened to become yet another climate catch-22: the White House wouldn’t engage unless the votes were there, but the votes wouldn’t be there unless the White House engaged. Obama aides spoke of a “stealth strategy†in which the energy team worked behind the scenes but the president was deployed sparingly.

“If you consider the difficulty of trying to pass cap and trade during a recession,†one Obama adviser said, “keeping a lower profile makes sense. Why stir up the opposition?†This was out of character for a president who was omnipresent in the media. His communications team put him on every magazine cover, granted “exclusives†to every news operation, sent him to five talk shows on a single Sunday. But on climate, they held him back because the green jobs message wasn’t playing well….

Not sure I entirely agree that was the reason why they held back Obama.

Rahm and Axelrod simply don’t get global warming. They bought the nonsensical argument based on bad polling analysis that there was no good way to talk about it (see Messaging 101b: EcoAmerica’s phrase ‘our deteriorating atmosphere’ isn’t going to replace ‘global warming’ — and that’s a good thing [4]) — and that it was not a politically winning issue (see Mark Mellman must read on climate messaging: “A strong public consensus has emerged on the reality and severity of global warming, as well as on the need for federal action†— ecoAmerica “could hardly be more wrong†[5] or many polls here [6]).

Obama’s stealth strategy had a fallacy at its core. The strategy assumed it was possible to be stealthy on this issue. It implied that if Obama didn’t elevate the issue, the opposition wouldn’t elevate it either. But the professional deniers—PR men and women paid to sow doubt and confusion on the issue—were getting louder every day. And Obama passed up chance after chance to talk about it.

When Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought the Waxman-Markey bill to the floor, they forced Obama’s hand. He began pressing members, Gore worked the phones from Nashville, and Emanuel put aside his misgivings and mounted an effective whip operation. With an impressive last-minute display by Pelosi, the bill passed 219 to 212—and then the momentum dissolved in the face of conservative opposition. Obama’s stealth strategy failed to take into account the vigor of American denialism and opposition to cap and trade. It also failed to anticipate that unforeseen cataclysms could make climate legislation harder to pass in 2010 and beyond than it had been in 2009.

It’s a cruel irony that the epic disaster in the Gulf—a wakeup call to the need to reduce our dependence on oil—makes it harder to pass a bill that would help us do so. Expanded offshore drilling (and the revenue it would bring) was the chip Obama hoped to use to draw oil-state senators into a grand bargain that would also include subsidies for nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, with a modest carbon cap in return. The oil spill blew up that idea by taking expanded deepwater drilling off the table, at least for now.

With few chips left, Obama appears to be hoping that public anger over the spill can help drive a new version of the climate bill. Soon, we’ll know whether he really means it. Democratic leaders in the Senate have been floating the idea of an energy bill without a carbon cap—which would be yet another failure of nerve by a group of legislators badly in need of adult supervision. Passing a real climate bill will be excruciatingly difficult. Waiting will only make it harder.

It’s time for Obama to intervene on the Hill, silence the naysayers inside his own administration, harness the public mood, and make good on his promise to fight.

Duh! (see “Is Obama blowing his best chance to shift the debate from the dirty, unsafe energy of the 19th century to the clean, safe energy of the 21st century? [7]“)

I will say that Rahm and Axelrod are not solely to blame for the administration’s lack of narrative. Indeed, the Matt Bai piece in the NYT magazine today — “Democrat in Chief? [8] It’s not clear that President Obama cares deeply about leading his party†— makes clear that Obama himself seems to lack the vision thing.

BUT even if Obama is not a great communicator, not a great narrative-creator, he is probably the best speechmaker in the party since JFK. He is visiting the Gulf again on Monday and Tuesday with the intent of delivering a major primetime speech this week. The Politico reports [9]:

President Barack Obama told POLITICO columnist Roger Simon that the Gulf disaster “echoes 9/11†because it will change the nation’s psyche for years to come.

Obama — facing mounting criticism of his handling of the BP gusher, even from longtime allies — vowed to make a “bold†push for a new energy law even as the calamity continues to unfold. And he said he will use the rest of his presidency to try to put the United States on a course toward a “new way of doing business when it comes to energy.â€

“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11,†the president said in an Oval Office [10] interview on Friday, “I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.â€

Previewing his message for the midterm congressional elections in November, the president said: “[T]he Democrats in Congress have taken tougher votes, have worked harder under more stressful circumstances, than just about any Congress in our memory. And they’ve done a great job and deserve reelection.â€

“So I’m going to be fighting on their behalf and doing everything I can and using my bully pulpit to communicate that fact to the American people,†he said. “I know there’s an anti-incumbent mood out there right now because … people are frustrated about the hit that the economy has taken. … But what I’m going to remind people of is we didn’t create this mess. And this Congress responded forcefully at a time when this economy really could have fallen off a cliff.â€

And I’ll give Obama credit for this comeback:

“The irony of course is, is that the rap on me before I got to office was that that’s all I could do — right?†he said with a chuckle. “[Y]ou know, ‘The guy gives a great speech, he inspires people, gets them all excited but we don’t know if he can manage and govern.’ So it’s not that I don’t think these issues are important. It’s that there’s a time and a place for these issues. …

“What the public wants to see is us solving this problem. And that may not make for good TV. Me sitting in a meeting with [Energy] Secretary [steven] Chu and [Gulf national incident commander] Thad Allen and looking over maps and figuring out how boom gets someplace, that’s not something that is high theater. But ultimately that’s going to make the biggest difference in terms of whether or not the Gulf recovers.â€

Obama said he couldn’t predict whether the nation would transition completely from an oil-based economy within his lifetime but added that “now is the time for us to start making that transition and investing in a new way of doing business when it comes to energy.â€

Well, the time has long since passed, but now is certainly much better than later.

Article printed from Climate Progress: http://climateprogress.org

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/13/the-unbearable-lameness-of-being-rahm-and-axelrod/

Comment:

I just don’t know what more to say?! How many facts do they need on their side to get something done??? All bona fide scientific organizations have said that climate change is very real and that we need to kick the hydrocarbon habit, pronto.

Their statements are printed, they are on the web, they are in letters, and they are available. The Gulf is getting covered in oil. We send billions of dollars overseas, many of them to governments and countries that don’t like us much. Oil and coal are ultimately limited anyway. And, the clean energy technologies will actually be good — VERY GOOD — for employment and the economy. So, what other facts do they need??? Really! Why are they whispering, compromising the whole thing away, giving ground, on the defensive? What am I missing? They need to change their game plan or, sadly, we need to change the coach. Simple as that.

I still have hope, but the clock is ticking.

Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.

– Henrik Tikkanen

[Bruce551]

EPA: Without American Power Act, one percent chance of avoiding catastrophe

by Brad Johnson

16 Jun 2010 11:05 AM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-16-epa-without-american-power-act-one-percent-chance-of-avoiding/

Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.

The American Power Act may be President Obama’s last chance to pass comprehensive climate legislation and prevent catastrophe this year.

The legislation, drafted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- before Graham dumped his commitment to a cap on carbon pollution -- is in the mix for the Senate calendar, although many Democrats want to abandon it for a smaller suite of energy policies, such as the bill that came out of Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) energy committee last year. Recognizing the political challenge, Obama has committed to finding the votes for legislation that puts a price on carbon pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its analysis of the American Power Act today, agreeing with independent studies that the legislation would cut energy bills, create jobs, and strengthen national security.

Most critically, they also looked at the effect of the legislation on the fate of the planet’s climate. Scientists have repeatedly warned that catastrophic tipping points -- global species collapse, megadroughts, rapid sea level rise, ice cap destruction -- become inevitable as the planet warms more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Quite simply, an American cap on carbon is the deciding factor

Under reference assumptions the probability of observed temperature changes in 2100, relative to pre-industrial levels, remaining below 2 C (or 3.6 F) is roughly 1%, and the probability of observed temperature change exceeding 4 C (or 7.2 F) is approximately 32%.

Under the combined APA and the G8 international agreement assumptions, the probability of observed temperature changes in 2100 remaining below 2 C (or 3.6 F) increases to 75%, and the probability of observed temperature changes exceeding 4 C is negligible given climate sensitivity assumptions.

To be clear -- EPA’s modeling of climate sensitivity is optimistic, and the world will need to raise its ambitions for declaring independence from oil and coal pollution.

Without policy, the EPA finds, concentrations of greenhouse gases will rise to 931 ppm carbon-dioxide-equivalent by 2100; with America leading the G8 to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2040, concentrations will only rise to 457 ppm.

Even if China, India, and other developing countries take the unlikely path of inaction until 2050, and then hold emissions constant, “the probability of observed temperature changes in 2100 remaining below 2 C (or 3.6 F) increases to approximately 11%, and the probability of observed temperature changes exceeding 4 C (or 7 F) falls to roughly 15%.â€

The opponents of the American Power Act and EPA regulation of carbon pollution are playing a deadly game of Russian roulette -- with bullets in 99 chambers out of 100.

[digitalcat]

[Bruce551]

Multiple studies find comprehensive climate and energy legislation equitable, affordable, and good for the economy

Posted June 16, 2010

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/multiple_studies_find_comprehe.html

In the last two weeks, a number of studies have been released assessing the economic impact of the American Power Act (APA), comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation released by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman last month.

The conclusions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and Climate Works are unambiguously positive, and consistent with numerous past analyses of climate legislation.

Measuring only a very small fraction of benefits from climate protection that can actually be monetized (e.g. protecting crops from temperature increases, and coastal properties from rising sea levels), the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's School of Law took the bold step of adding these benefits up and comparing them to the (much smaller) abatement cost of mitigation.

Using the most conservative assumptions at every corner, their study finds that this limited subset of benefits could be as much as 9 times higher than the costs.

Notably, these benefits exclude the potentially catastrophic outcomes scientists worry the most about (e.g. a complete melting of the West Antarctic ice shelf or Greenland’s ice sheets, either of which would by itself result in a 20 foot rise in sea level), and many environmental assets that are difficult if not impossible to monetize, such as the loss of species and ecosystems—some of which are already underway (click here, here, and here for examples).

Employment and national security benefits from enhanced oil recovery (EOR). New oil production from a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR) would drive further job creation. EOR is a technology that has been used for decades to produce additional oil from fields by injecting CO2 (or steam) to free oil that is ordinarily left trapped in the underground formation. Currently, most of the CO2 used for EOR is extracted from natural sources which are limited in supply. With climate legislation, the supply of CO2 would increase dramatically from CO2 waste captured at power plants and industrial facilities. In addition to providing a place to sequester CO2, an abundance of existing and abandoned oil fields are available for CO2-EOR. They could yield an estimated 3 million of barrels of oil per day (mbd) by 2030, and displace 2.25 mbd in oil imports [1]. By 2020, over 40,000 jobs could be created in the oil industry, rising to approximately 350,000 by 2030 (click here, here, here, and here to learn more about EOR).[2] CO2-EOR would also reduce pressure to open up new areas for oil exploration.

Energy efficiency savings. Only the McKinsey & Co. model used by Climate Works adequately captures all of the possible energy efficiency and other low-cost abatement options. To get a sense of the vast potential for energy efficiency McKinsey & Company put out an excellent report in 2009 on energy efficiency opportunities in different sectors of the economy. It found that the industrial sector could cut primary energy consumption with a positive payback by 18 percent by 2020 (click here for another study on industrial efficiency).

Climate legislation can help industry realize these improvements (click here and here). Allowances will go toward promoting more efficient production processes, R&D, low-cost loans, and other assistance to help manufacturers retool, retrain workers, and lower their energy bills. Increased efficiency will improve competitiveness, not only creating jobs in the process, but also keeping the ones we already have.

In addition, McKinsey (2009) also estimates energy efficiency potential of almost 30% for both the residential and commercial sectors.

USA consumes about 4,045 billion kWhs a year, so 30% savings equals a lot of money and CO2 reduction.

Cost-reducing breakthrough innovations. None of the models can include cost-reducing breakthrough innovations, for the simple reason that they don’t yet exist. Yet how likely is it that over the course of forty years we won’t see any? Just looking at the evolution of computers and cell phones over only the last decade, our success in reaching the moon in a decade’s time, and the inexorable force of market innovation wherever profitable opportunities exist, it is difficult to imagine that rewarding clean energy production won’t unleash an unprecedented wave of clean energy innovation.

IMHO, anything less than American Power Act is simply suicide for all living things that inhabit this planet. The Senate must set a price on carbon.

Austin, Texas has a plan to be using 35% Clean Energy by 2020. San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado are gonna to do it too. Point being that some cities are already to doing more to lower CO2 emissions than the APA would require.

Can Americans stand by and let a Republican "Filibuster" kill us all?

Yesterday wasn't soon enough to take serious action on reducing CO2 emissions.