Kerry - Lieberman Climate Bill

[Bruce551]

Some consumers would see modest cost increases -- we're talking about literally $7 a month -- but the legislation includes mechanisms to help consumers offset those costs. As Dave Roberts explained, "Cost is simply not a credible reason to oppose a carbon cap."

And at the same time the American Power Act would overhaul a broken energy framework, combat global warming, make America more competitive globally, lower the budget deficit, and according to a ClimateWorks Foundation analysis also published today, create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next generation.

Given all of this, plus public opinion, plus the effects of the worst environmental catastrophe in American history, it's painfully frustrating to realize this might die in the Senate.

For what it's worth, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said today, "Are we there? No. We don't have the 60 votes yet. I know that. But we're close, enough to be able to fight for it, and we'll see where we wind up."

I like the reader comments, 555

"Why do so many senators hate America so much?"

"Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain."

"If I were making the argument, I would make the point that those modest costs to consumers are more than offset by savings in the defense budget when we no longer have to spend money overseas in the middle east to "defend our interests" in that region.'

"there is no way shape or form that sustainable energy is more expense than the current fossil fuel based dirty unsustainable energy. Sustainable energy has no - none - zero extraction costs, shipment costs, conversion costs, high maintenance costs (low maintenance costs, yes), or waste management costs."

[Bruce551]

Daddy, could we have our planet back now?

Posted By Joe On June 20, 2010 @ 10:33 am In Climate Progress

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/20/fathers-day-essay/

Salon just published my Father’s Day essay. It’s a sequel of sorts to “Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme? â€

As parents, we constantly admonish our children to share with others. The joke is that as adults, we hardly like to share anything at all. Who likes to lend out their car? Or their tools or books? We’re so worried they won’t come back in the same condition — or won’t be returned at all.

But the truth is that the people we like to share the least with are our own children. “We do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children,†the saying goes. Right now, though, we’ve borrowed the entire Earth, trashed much of it, and don’t plan to give back the rest of it.

We are plundering the world’s “renewable resources†— arable land and tropical forests and fisheries and fresh water. And we are using an ever-greater fraction of nonrenewable energy resources, especially hydrocarbons, with devastating consequences that will far exceed what we are now witnessing in the Gulf of Mexico.

As one example, our carbon pollution is acidifying all of the oceans simultaneously, while heating them up to record levels, threatening mass extinction of aquatic life. Australian marine science professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the lead author of a major new study in Science , says the result is that “we are entering a period in which the very ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail.†He adds: “It’s as if the Earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day†— except, of course, the smoke comes from our addiction to fossil fuels, not the Earth’s.

The website RealClimate points out that the amount of dangerous carbon dioxide we spew into the air each day from burning fossil fuels and deforestation is roughly equivalent to “five thousand spills like in the Gulf of Mexico, all going at once … every day for decades and centuries on end.â€

And if we listen much longer to those anti-science disinformers who have been counseling inaction, we won’t just be trashing the climate for our children — we will be destroying a livable climate for countless future generations. A 2009 study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that

“the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.â€

What kind of changes? Well, besides destroying the oceans, the study warns of “irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions (Thailand) comparable to those of the ‘dust bowl’ era and inexorable sea level rise.â€

The dust bowl that will hit the American Southwest and a half-dozen other heavily populated regions around the Earth will likely last far, far longer than the one that devastated the Great Plains in the 1930s. And the sea level rise could hit 4 to 6 feet by century’s end and then continue rising a foot or more a decade, until all the land-based ice on the planet is gone and seas are more than 200 feet higher. How will our children’s children and their descendants adapt to that?

The big debate in the Senate this summer will be whether to pass an energy and climate bill that finally puts a price on carbon pollution.

Conservatives have demagogued even the most moderate, business-friendly proposal to put a price on carbon, falsely labeling it and “energy tax.†In his big speech last week, President Obama praised the House bill, which would establish a shrinking cap on carbon and a rising price, but he himself never mentioned the threat posed by unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions, or the urgent need to make polluters pay for emitting carbon dioxide. As a result, the prospects have dimmed for serious climate legislation this year.

To refuse to place a price on carbon dioxide pollution is to ignore the damage your actions today will inevitably have on the health and well-being of your children and everyone else’s children.

Something to think about on Father’s Day.

[Bruce551]

Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal that “a whole range of ideas will be discussed†when Obama hosts senators at the White House next Wednesday, including placing a mandatory limit solely on the heat-trapping emissions from electric utilities.

“The idea of a ‘utilities only’ [approach] will also be welcomed,†Emanuel told the newspaper in an interview.

Obama is expected to discuss the pending Senate energy and climate bill with about a dozen Democrats and Republicans at the White House, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

President Obama Clean Energy website:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cleanenergyupdate?source=20100621_MS_misc

[DJTX]

President Obama Clean Energy website:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cleanenergyupdate?source=20100621_MS_misc

Would be nice if it was really an attempt at 'clean energy'. It's more like:

Your contribution will be used in connection with Federal elections and is subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The Democrats control congress. The President is a Democrat. Here is their opportunity to do something. The new motto should be "Just do something"

[eagle]

President Obama Clean Energy website:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cleanenergyupdate?source=20100621_MS_misc

Would be nice if it was really an attempt at 'clean energy'. It's more like:

Your contribution will be used in connection with Federal elections and is subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The Democrats control congress. The President is a Democrat. Here is their opportunity to do something. The new motto should be "Just do something"

Republicans are trying to stop anything they do then they will say they didn't accomplish anything. The corporate money is on business as usual , sad sad but at least Obama seems to be trying. I will wait to judge for a few more years as its not easy to get anything done in Washington.

[Bruce551]

Big Solar projects, not Coal plants.

NRG Energy just scooped up a portfolio of nine solar development projects in California and Arizona. Through subsidiary NRG Solar, the New Jersey-based power producer has bought the projects for an undisclosed price from US Solar Ventures Holdings.

Ranging in size from 20 megawatts to 99 megawatts and expected to eventually total 450 MW, these projects aren’t set to come online until 2011-2013. With the addition of these new projects, NRG Solar’s development pipeline now includes 1.15 gigawatts of solar projects.

Today’s deal comes at a time when utilities have started to help drive the solar installation market, having recently become eligible for the first time for federal tax credits and cash grants. Those incentives have made it feasible for them to build their own plants, instead of financing them through power-purchase-agreement providers that own and operate the plants. NRG is what’s known as a merchant generator, selling power on competitive wholesale markets rather than at regulated rates like utilities.

Founded in 2008 as a joint venture with affiliates of investment firm ArcLight Capital Partners, US Solar has focused on developing utility-scale projects — from siting, permitting and financing to securing interconnections and transmission — that use parabolic trough and photovoltaic solar technology.

NRG owns about 24 gigawatts of power generation, mostly in natural gas and coal plants in Texas and the Northeast. It’s relatively new to the renewables industry, with only two clean energy projects in its portfolio as of July 2009 (a pair of wind plants in Texas). But late last year NRG bought a high-profile 21-megawatt solar project in Blythe, Calif. from thin-film giant First Solar, and also announced plans to spend $300 million-$500 million annually over the next 5-6 years in renewables, mostly in solar, biomass and wind projects.

California and Arizona have RPS, Renewable Portfolio Standard, 20% RE by 2020. The US should have a national RPS minium too. Then all utilities will invest RE.

[Bruce551]

Obama and Senate finally dive in on climate and energy bil

by Randy Rieland

21 Jun 2010 10:46 AM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-21-obama-and-senate-finally-dive-in-on-climate-and-energy-bill/

Tick ... tick ... tick ... The Senate now has about 30 working days before its August recess to decide how serious to get about dealing with greenhouse-gas emissions. By the end of this week, particularly after a confab Wednesday between President Barack Obama and top senators, we should have a clearer picture of whether they'll go wading pool on us -- an energy-only bill -- or take a deep dive and actually impose a cap on carbon emissions. Dina Fine Maron and Christa Marshall of ClimateWire give the state of play.

There's a cap for that: Obama has the chance to make up for last week's fuzzy Oval Office speech by taking a harder line on making energy companies and manufacturers pay for carbon emissions. That's what The New York Times is pushing him to do:

Mr. Obama must stress, explicitly and emphatically, that a conventional energy bill will not do -- and that attaching real costs to older, dirtier fuels now dumped free of charge into the atmosphere is the surest way to persuade American industry to develop cleaner fuels.

Derek Thompson, writing for The Atlantic, offers a primer on why carbon pricing matters:

When something is free, you tend to use more of it. It's true for buffets and open bars, and it's the same with carbon. Today producers and consumers can burn coal and drive gas-guzzlers without fully paying for their contribution to rising carbon dioxide levels. Carbon emissions have a cost, but carbon emitters don't pay the price. Economists call this a "market failure." You can call it, "a recipe for toasting the planet."

Better than a slick in the eye: But when the Senate starts making sausage, who knows what will come out of the grinder. Grist's David Roberts does the smell test on another approach gaining traction, which could ease the election-year anxieties of Dems from manufacturing states: a cap only on carbon emissions from utility plants.

At this point ... the question may no longer be whether a comprehensive bill is preferable to a utility-only bill, but whether a utility-only bill is preferable to the energy-only bill the Senate seems bent on passing. Judged against that somewhat pathetic baseline, it is, in fact, preferable.

Rahm with a view: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, during an interview on ABC's This Week, didn't exactly tip the president's hand, but did use the words "carbon pollution":

[senators] know the president's perspective. He has been clear with them about what there needs to be done. His goal now, now that the House passed a bill, is to get the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy bill that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, makes key investments in the areas of alternative energy so America leads in that space, and deals fundamentally with the environmental degradation that happens from carbon pollution.

Details, details: For their part, Republican leaders are happy to tip their hand. They break into a Pavlovian chorus of "job-killing national energy tax" any time someone brings up climate legislation proposed by Democrats, particularly the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act.

But FactCheck.org cites analysis concluding that the American Power Act would actually result in a gain of more than 200,000 jobs.

Risky business: While most of the media zeroed in on BP CEO Tony Hayward's yachting romp off the coast of England or Rep. Ed Markey's (D-Mass.) revelation that a BP internal memo projected that the Gulf leak could spew up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day, Wall Street Journal reporters Russell Gold and Tom McGinty threw more salt on BP's festering wounds.

Their investigation revealed that for more than a third of its oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, BP used a design that was cheaper but riskier than the other well major design. And yes, that includes the Deepwater Horizon rig.

[DJTX]

Republicans are trying to stop anything they do then they will say they didn't accomplish anything. The corporate money is on business as usual , sad sad but at least Obama seems to be trying. I will wait to judge for a few more years as its not easy to get anything done in Washington.

The republicans had their chance when they controlled Congress, and they blew it... The Democrats now control both Congress and the White House. If they really wanted to make things happen they would, the republicans couldn't stop them. The key is, the dems have to want to do something. The ball's in their court (so to speak). They can not blame the republicans if they fail.

[Bruce551]

Republicans oppose Democratic climate plan in favor of alternatives that would cost more and do less

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-28-republicans-climate-plans-cost-more-do-less/

Several energy industry officials -- preferring certainty from Congress this year ahead of expected EPA climate rules next year -- are upset about the GOP's reluctance to work with Democrats on the climate bill.

“Bottom line is why would they want to try to kill it at all when coal faces a barrage of regulations,†one power company source said. “Without putting a price on carbon, it will be very difficult to build nuclear or put money into clean coal, etc. We are moving to a totally natural gas future, and they are not helping spur jobs or helping the coal industry by not working collectively to solve the problem.â€

This is an underappreciated phenomenon: With a few exceptions, most people in the business community want Congress to act on this. They need to know the rules of the game; they need to be making 40- and 50-year investments. Republicans aren't even serving their interests any more. They have drifted into their own hermetically sealed world, utterly dominated by their teabagger fringe.

One last point. I'm surprised Darren let this pass:

Republican leaders counter that they've pitched their own alternatives -- more nuclear power, incentives for electric cars -- that are much less expensive but that could make a sizable shift in the nation's energy future. The fate of big-ticket climate legislation, Republicans say, rests on the Democrats and not their members.

This has become the standard Republican line: We offer weak, useless alternatives that justify our opposition to anything real or efficacious. But Darren shouldn't let them get away with saying their energy alternatives are "much less expensive."

The whole point of pricing carbon is that it pays for all the incentives. The Waxman-Markey bill and the Senate climate bill would both reduce the deficit; Republican alternatives (and Bingaman's weak-ass energy bill) would increase it. Good climate policy is good fiscal policy.

Republican plans to lavish the industries and technologies they favor with subsidies -- which is called "picking winners" when Democrats do it -- are new spending that's not paid for. They are, by definition, "more expensive" than alternatives that are paid for.

This is a key aspect of the climate debate on which the mainstream media has utterly dropped the ball: Democratic plans on climate and energy are not only more environmentally credible, they are more fiscally credible. Republican plans would achieve less at greater total cost to federal coffers.

Republicans today are driven entirely by the one principle that remains of a once-proud conservative intellectual tradition: absolute, unremitting opposition to any means of raising revenue. That's it. The fate of the climate is, like everything else, secondary. Yet the media just takes their intransigent opposition for granted. It hardly seems worth remarking any more. And they never pay a political price for it. In these circumstances, the country is ungovernable and the climate problem simply can't be solved.

A Salon debate on cap-and-trade and energy politics: day one

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-28-salon-debate-cap-and-trade-energy-politics-day-one/

On the costs of a cap-and-trade system, the economic consensus is that it would cost American households about a postage stamp a day -- a far, far smaller price than would be imposed by the damages from climate change. For more on that consensus, see this discussion paper (PDF) from journalist Eric Pooley.

To conclude: virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. needs to invest in new clean energy industries and solutions. That's the easy part. The politically more difficult part is how thttp://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-28-salon-debate-cap-and-trade-energy-politics-day-one/o pay for those investments. A cap-and-trade system offers a twofer: It discourages carbon pollution by raising its price, and it uses that revenue to fund clean energy solutions. Conservatives want to spend the money, but they don't want to raise it. It's fiscally and morally irresponsible.

I think cap & trade will work as long as speculators (Wall Street Banks) are kept out.

[DJTX]

Bruce, nice to know what the Republicans are (or are not) doing. But they do not control Congress of the White House. Exactly what is the Democratic controlled House doing? What is the Democratic controlled Senate doing? What is Obama doing? - other than just talking???

[Bruce551]

Bruce, nice to know what the Republicans are (or are not) doing. But they do not control Congress of the White House. Exactly what is the Democratic controlled House doing? What is the Democratic controlled Senate doing? What is Obama doing? - other than just talking???

The Latest,

White House climate-bill meeting ends with a whimper

by Jonathan Hiskes

29 Jun 2010 12:23 PM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-white-house-climate-bill-meeting-ends-with-a-whimper/

Kerry, feels like we're writing about the "very last chance for a climate bill in 2010" just about every week. Well, Tuesday morning's White House meeting between President Obama and 23 senators was billed as yet one more last chance to breathe some life into the bill that the Senate can't seem to pass.

So far, few useful details have emerged from the huddle. Instead, we get a pathetic quote from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) that feels way too accurate:

"We believe we have compromised significantly, and we're prepared to compromise further," Kerry told Politico's Darren Samuelsohn.

If you're looking for the sorry state of American energy politics distilled into one line, there it is.

Now, Kerry fights harder for clean energy than just about any national politician. And the level of dysfunction in the Senate makes it impossible to avoid compromise to polluter interests and Republican obstructionism. Still, this is not inspiring.

One glimmer of hope is that Obama's still trying to convince senators to include a price on carbon in the bill, Kerry and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said after the meeting.

"The president was very clear about putting a price on carbon" and curbing greenhouse gases, Kerry told Politico.

But -- to dash that hope -- Obama isn't putting climate and energy at the top of his public agenda. Instead, he's moving on to immigration reform, on which he'll give a major speech on Thursday.

And Senate Dems still don't have a clear climate-bill strategy going forward. Will they push for a broad cap on carbon? One that only applies to electric utilities?:

Asked whether a power plant-specific bill was in the cards, Kerry replied, "There are any number of varieties. That could be one of them."

Kerry's quote calls to mind T.S. Eliot:

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/29/obama-carbon-price-utility-cap-olympia-snow/

In fact, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) issued a long statement endorsing a utility cap but repeating some tired myths — including the nonsensical conservative talking point that taking action on climate starting three years from now would somehow threaten the recovery, when the reverse is true

(see Nobelist Krugman attacks “junk economicsâ€: Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump†by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities†).

Here is Snowe’s full statement:

“As I have long advocated, working toward energy independence is an imperative for our economic and national security. Which is why today I urged the President to seize control of our own energy destiny and, for the first time, establish clearly defined national timetables for clean energy production, benchmarks for oil consumption reduction, and goals for game-changing research – which no other president has ever done, to ensure we actually attain that independence.

Central to this is moving forward with an aggressive energy bill that reorients our nation toward renewable and energy efficiency. This cannot be underestimated in literally transforming our energy supply and yielding tremendous environmental and economic benefits.

Just last year, the U.S. was a global leader in wind with 10,000 Megawatts of facilities constructed at 39 percent growth – and yet, we are in danger of losing that competitive and technological edge to China which grew its wind capacity by 100 percent last year.

“And that is why I have co-authored legislation sponsored by Senator Klobuchar that would establish a strong Renewable Energy Standard of 25 percent by 2025 and worked on the Home Star proposal with Senators Bingaman and Warner, which would provide energy efficiency rebates and long-term tax credits to build an entirely new industry in performance-based efficiency. (That's a good start)

While there is consensus among us on energy, on the complex and difficult question of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, there is no consensus at this time.

From my perspective, I’ve long asserted that placing a price on carbon will send the appropriate signals to entrepreneurs that would unleash the innovation to position America as a global clean energy industry leader.

However, today we are in different and perilous economic times with last week’s new jobless claims actually increasing by 12,000, to a total of 472,000 Americans, and the full impact of the BP spill is yet unknown. So it’s essential that we carefully weigh the costs of action versus inaction to avoid unintended consequences that cost us jobs, as well as the distributional effects of any policy we apply and how we mitigate and equalize those effects.â€

One Big problem are the "Blue Dog" Democrats, mostly from the Coal & Oil states. How to buy them off?

[Bruce551]

The President

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

July 2, 2010

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for your forceful and eloquent expression of the absolute necessity for bold action to accelerate America’s transition to clean energy. Time and again you have described to Americans the benefits of clean energy reform. Your administration has taken important actions by making unprecedented investments in clean energy technology, setting more efficient fuel economy standards, and adopting many other measures. Now is the time to take the next essential steps.

Even as Americans see heartbreaking and infuriating images of damage to the Gulf coast, well-funded and powerful special interests have been working furiously to defeat progress and maintain the status quo. They have recruited their allies to help paralyze the Senate’s deliberations over whether and how to reduce oil use and cut global warming pollution, using tactics that have derailed efforts by Presidents for the last 40 years to curtail our ever-growing dependence on oil. A rapidly growing number of our millions of active members are deeply frustrated at the inability of the Senate and your Administration to act in the face of an overwhelming disaster in the Gulf, and the danger to our nation and world.

The Senate needs your help to end this paralysis. With the window of opportunity quickly closing, nothing less than your direct personal involvement, and that of senior administration officials, can secure America’s clean energy future. We strongly urge you to produce a bill, in conjunction with key Senators, that responds to the catastrophe in the Gulf, cuts oil use, and limits carbon pollution while maintaining current health and other key legal protections. We further urge you to work with the Senate to bring that bill to the floor for passage before the August recess. White House leadership is the only path we see to success, just as your direct leadership was critical in the passage of the recovery plan, health care reform, and other administration successes.

Two weeks ago, in an address to the nation from the Oval Office, you laid out the issue in stark terms: “The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. We cannot consign our children to this future. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.†We emphatically agree. America’s future prosperity, the health of our environment, our ability to create good quality clean-energy jobs and to meet our international commitments, and our national security rest on the action you take in the days ahead.

Sincerely,

Maggie Fox, President and CEO

Alliance for Climate Protection

David Foster, Executive Director

BlueGreen Alliance

John Podesta, President and CEO

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Margie Alt, Executive Director

Environment America

Fred Krupp, President

Environmental Defense Fund

Gene Karpinski, President

League of Conservation Voters

Larry Schweiger, President

National Wildlife Federation

Peter Lehner, Executive Director

Natural Resources Defense Council

Kevin Knobloch, President

Union of Concerned Scientists

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

URL to article: http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/09/podesta-letter-obama-climate-clean-energy-bill/

[DJTX]

With almost a 10% unemployment rate, much higher in some states and actually higher when you count the people who have given up looking for work, I doubt the average American is worried about the environment right now. Almost forgot, when most American's lost 40-50 percent of their savings due to the crooked bankers, climate change is "low" on their list of things to address.

[Bruce551]

With almost a 10% unemployment rate, much higher in some states and actually higher when you count the people who have given up looking for work, I doubt the average American is worried about the environment right now. Almost forgot, when most American's lost 40-50 percent of their savings due to the crooked bankers, climate change is "low" on their list of things to address.

A price carbon will lead to investment by the private sector in the new Clean Energy economy and help the government pay for Clean Energy research necessary to compete in the world economy.

CARBON PRICE = JOBS

China's development bank just invested about 17 Billion USD in Chinese Solar PV companies. Go figure....

[DJTX]

With almost a 10% unemployment rate, much higher in some states and actually higher when you count the people who have given up looking for work, I doubt the average American is worried about the environment right now. Almost forgot, when most American's lost 40-50 percent of their savings due to the crooked bankers, climate change is "low" on their list of things to address.

A price carbon will lead to investment by the private sector in the new Clean Energy economy and help the government pay for Clean Energy research necessary to compete in the world economy.

CARBON PRICE = JOBS

China's development bank just invested about 17 Billion USD in Chinese Solar PV companies. Go figure....

You are probably correct, but is the "I will do anything to get reelected" Congress brave enough to do something that is really needed.

[Bruce551]

An interview with Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' former climate-change chief

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, July 11, 2010;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902339.html

Until this month, Yvo de Boer served as executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that oversees international climate negotiations. After supervising the Copenhagen climate talks last year, a process he has called frustrating, de Boer suddenly announced in February that he would be stepping down. After nearly four years on the U.N. job (he describes it as "three years and 11 months," but who's counting?), he just started work as an adviser on climate change and sustainability at KPMG International in London. The Washington Post's national environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin spoke with de Boer last week about leaving the United Nations, why he never kept Al Gore out in the cold and how President Obama has his brain in the right place.

Why did you leave your post as executive secretary of the UNFCCC? This is not a job, I think, anybody should want to do for more than three years and 11 months. I don't imagine there's any job one should do for more than three years and 11 months. This really is a position in which you need to be at continuous 200 percent of inventiveness and energy.

I left Copenhagen feeling pretty depressed. But looking at it now, we have a long-term goal of [keeping global temperatures from rising more than] 2 degrees [Celsius]; we have mobilized long-term financing; we've had 127 countries sign onto the Copenhagen Accord; all rich countries have submitted national [emission] targets; all the major developing countries have submitted national action plans.

I think we're in a different phase. We're in a phase where what the world needs to do in 2020 is pretty clear. Government needs to put in place the policy direction, and then the private sector needs to provide the solutions.

To some extent, expectations were too high going into the climate talks in Copenhagen last December, but now some officials have accused you of lowering expectations for this year's conference in Cancun, Mexico, by saying a legally binding treaty will not come out of the negotiations.

It's a very difficult call to make. The negotiators going to Cancun will have to have political backing at the highest possible level if they're going to have the mandates to advance. If political leaders do not think that it will produce anything, it will be difficult to get those mandates. To use the terms of European football, it is important to recognize the first time you get a yellow card, the second time you get a red card. The process got the yellow card in Copenhagen, and there's no such thing as a second yellow card. Cancun has to deliver the architecture for a final agreement.

It's unclear whether the United States will be able to enact climate legislation by the end of the year in time for the Cancun meeting. What does that mean for the outcome?

If the United States says to China, "We need to be sure you're pulling your weight," it's pretty logical for China to say, "Fair enough, how are you pulling your weight?" Getting U.S. legislation is critical to the United States' international credibility in this process.

Obama has gotten the message down better than anybody else, when you look at what he did last week, providing loan guarantees for renewable-energy projects. (22GW of Solar projects in pipeline)

It's hard to imagine how he could have gotten more curveballs in the first two years of his administration, with the economic crisis and the health-care issue. What gives me confidence is there's lots of people with their heart in the right place. I also think he has his brain in the right place.

Where do you think the environmental movement is at this point?

At the end of the day, if the situation is that a significant portion of the people in the environmental movement believe the green [economic] growth story, but an even more significant number of people outside the environmental movement don't believe the green growth story, then it's just not going to happen. Very few governments are going to be willing to run their countries into the ground to save the planet.

What I am hearing more and more out of the private sector is they are willing to help shape the policies -- feed-in tariffs, tax incentives -- to do this. They're saying, "We can help you to design this in a way that works for us."

You got a send-off in Bonn in June from people in the nongovernmental organization community. They sang a song to the tune of "My Favorite Things" that included lines such as "Keeping Al Gore out of the Bella Center" -- where the Copenhagen talks took place. Is that really one of your favorite things?

I certainly never kept Al Gore out in the cold, and I put a lot of effort into getting him in. There are a lot of people who talk over your head [in the climate debate]. He talks right in your face.

I was very touched by the NGO send-off, and it was really heartwarming to get the send-off I did from the small island nations and the smaller developing nations. I think there was a time where some countries did see me, as a Dutchman, as a representative of the industrialized world. At the end of a time like that, getting the send-off I did from the small island nations and the developing nations really gave me the feeling that maybe I did something right.

What do you miss about your old job? And what do you enjoy the most about no longer doing it?

I've been with KPMG for two days. What's really nice is running into people who say yes all the time instead of saying no most of the time. What I do miss is the politics of the process, the pressure of the politics, because there are very significant national politics at stake.

If I can play any kind of role in bringing those two worlds together, and making the case where yes, we can have green economic growth, that would be would be really important.

It would be pretentious to say I'm a marriage broker. But if I can take my understanding of the political essentials and requirements with the business essentials and requirements, and help to get those two aligned instead of opposed, that would be like launching a rocket in this arena.

[LakeGeneve]

With almost a 10% unemployment rate, much higher in some states and actually higher when you count the people who have given up looking for work, I doubt the average American is worried about the environment right now. Almost forgot, when most American's lost 40-50 percent of their savings due to the crooked bankers, climate change is "low" on their list of things to address.

A price carbon will lead to investment by the private sector in the new Clean Energy economy and help the government pay for Clean Energy research necessary to compete in the world economy.

CARBON PRICE = JOBS

China's development bank just invested about 17 Billion USD in Chinese Solar PV companies. Go figure....

You are probably correct, but is the "I will do anything to get reelected" Congress brave enough to do something that is really needed.

To paraphrase the Republicans for the last 18 months...........

NO!

[Bruce551]

With almost a 10% unemployment rate, much higher in some states and actually higher when you count the people who have given up looking for work, I doubt the average American is worried about the environment right now. Almost forgot, when most American's lost 40-50 percent of their savings due to the crooked bankers, climate change is "low" on their list of things to address.

A price carbon will lead to investment by the private sector in the new Clean Energy economy and help the government pay for Clean Energy research necessary to compete in the world economy.

CARBON PRICE = JOBS

China's development bank just invested about 17 Billion USD in Chinese Solar PV companies. Go figure....

You are probably correct, but is the "I will do anything to get reelected" Congress brave enough to do something that is really needed.

To paraphrase the Republicans for the last 18 months...........

NO!

Criminals!!!!!!

[Bruce551]

The wayward forward

Where do conservatives go from here? They simplified their policy menu down to three ideas: cut taxes, reduce regulations and attack yet another foreign country. These ideas have been so successfully implemented that they have nearly finished us off.

Conservatives now have raised the back of their hands to their foreheads, tilted their faces to the heavens, and started a long catlike yowl about the deficits that their former flightsuit-clad hero George W. Bush delivered to the nation, thanks to the very same conservative principles named above. Hence the conservative dilemma. Cut taxes some more now? Oops! Those deficits! Reduce regulations? Oh, let’s see if a less-regulated Wall Street can destroy the tax base MORE thoroughly! Attack still ANOTHER country? How much could THAT possibly cost?

There is really only one strategy remaining for conservatives. Prevent an economic recovery while Obama is still president, thereby clearing the way for an anger-filled electorate to lift up a truly crazy candidate, the kind only frighteningly prolonged bad times could reward. Ever wonder what accounts for that smug, knowing look on Sarah Palin’s face? Now you know. – Tom Toles

[Bruce551]

The stone soup clean energy and climate bill

Posted By Susan On July 16, 2010 @ 12:19 pm In Clean Energy Jobs Bill

CAP’s Daniel J. Weiss [1], Susan Lyon [2], and Tina Ramos [3] cook up a better bill from the most effective proposals.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) [4] announced on July 13 he plans to bring clean energy legislation to the Senate floor the week of July 26.

The Politico reports, “Reid confirmed the bill will have four parts [5]: an oil spill response; a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.†He said Senate leaders would spend the next week putting together a bill with these four titles.

The approach could be akin to the children’s story “Stone Soup [6].†No villager alone had the ingredients to make a hearty meal for soldiers passing through their town, but each brought an ingredient and together they created a community soup. By the same token, no existing Senate energy bill has all of the needed components, but it is possible to craft a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill that would actually achieve Reid’s four goals by combining the most effective provisions from a number of existing bills.

Senate committees have reviewed or voted on many of the existing bills. Combining their provisions into a single bill should make it easier to draft the bill and build support for the overall package. Think of it as “The Stone Soup Clean Energy Bill.â€

Weiss, Lyon, and Ramos have gone through and examined the bills; what follows are what we consider to be the most effective provisions from existing legislation for each section outlined by Senator Reid.

Oil spill response

The BP oil disaster is the most severe environmental catastrophe in American history. The damage to public health, the economy, and the Gulf Coast environment from Texas to Florida could last for decades. There are a number of proposals that would address this nightmare or prevent future disasters.

The Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010, S.3516 [7]

Government cost: Not available

This bill reforms the Interior Department’s management and oversight of ocean energy production, including more rig inspections. It also boosts the agency’s natural resources research and management. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources [8] passed this bill on June 30, 2010.

Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act, S.3305 [9]

Government cost: None

This bill amends the Oil Pollution Act to remove the $75 million cap on liability for offshore oil spills, replacing it with unlimited liability. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works passed this bill on June 30, 2010.

Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund Act, S. 3306 [10]

Government cost: None

The bill [11] would eliminate the $1 billion spending limit on money from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It would allow advance payments from the fund to states to respond to an oil spill. S. 3306 has been referred to the Committee on Finance.

Clean energy and job creation

The United States will heavily depend on dirty coal and oil until we make large investments of private capital to research, develop, deploy, and commercialize clean energy technologies. This includes investments in oil reduction, building efficiency, wind and solar power, and other clean energy technologies. There are many measures that would spur investments to revamp manufacturing, create jobs, increase energy security, and cut pollution.

The American Clean Energy Leadership Act, S. 1462 [12]

Government cost: $13 billion

ACELA includes some of these broad provisions for clean energy investments. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the bill on July16, 2009. But the Senate should not adopt the bill in its entirety because it includes some provisions that do little to speed the transformation to a clean energy economy. These include allowing oil drilling in protected, fragile area off Florida’s gulf coast, and expanding loan guarantees for nuclear power. Recommendations for adoption of some ACELA provisions are noted below.

Reduce oil use

There are three primary ways to reduce oil use: make cars much more fuel efficient, boost cleaner alternative fuels such as electricity for cars and natural gas for trucks, and invest in public transportation. CAP’s recent “Senate Oil Savings Greatest Hits [13]†evaluates the major Senate oil savings proposals that address these needs and recommends the provisions with the most oil savings in each category (see matrix [14]). These provisions could form the basis for an oil savings section of a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill. The top three recommendations are:

* Establish a program to cut oil use by 8 million barrels per day by 2030, as in the Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act [15].

* Increase fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles by 6 percent annually beginning with model year 2017, also in the Oil Independence Act.

* Invest in electric cars, natural gas trucks and buses, and their infrastructure, as outlined in the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act, S. 3442 [16] and the NAT GAS Act, S. 1408 [17].

Clean energy infrastructure

We must rebuild our aging, inefficient electricity grid [18] to transmit clean, safe, domestic wind, solar, and renewable electricity generated in rural areas to more populated places. A rehabilitated electrical grid, like other large infrastructure projects, is essential for nationwide economic growth.

Rebuilding America’s electricity transmission system, ACELA, Section 121 [19]

Government cost: None

This provision increases federal backstop authority to plan, site, and allocate costs for the construction of new transmission lines if states cannot act. It also improves federal standards for the implementation of digital smart grid technology within regional electricity distribution networks. It includes a cost sharing provision, but one that is so flawed and unworkable that it should not be included in the comprehensive Senate energy bill.

Clean energy finance

Lack of access to capital is one of the largest impediments to the deployment and commercialization of clean energy technologies. The financial crisis exacerbated this problem, and obtaining capital and credit support remains difficult today.

The Clean Energy Deployment Administration, ACELA, Section 105 [20]

Government cost: $10 billion

CEDA, also known as the “green bank [20],†would be an independent administration under the Department of Energy. It would increase access to capital for clean energy entrepreneurs and help get new technologies through the “valley of death†and to commercial scale in the market. Credit support would include direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, and insurance.

Invest in energy efficiency

Reducing energy use is the “low hanging fruit†of greenhouse gas pollution reduction because there are many ways to save energy and money.

HOMESTAR [21] and BUILDING STAR programs, S. 3177 and S. 3079 [22]

Government cost: $6 billion each

These provisions would create market incentives to invest in energy efficiency retrofits of homes and commercial buildings. HOME STAR is pending before the Senate Finance Committee, while BUILDING STAR is pending before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The House passed HOMESTAR [23] with bi-partisan support.

State energy efficiency retrofit program, ACELA, Section 262 [24]

Government cost: $100 million, estimated

This provision directs the Department of Energy to establish a national residential and commercial building retrofit program with grants for efficiency retrofits. States could provide grants for commercial building retrofits that reduce energy use by 20 percent.

Energy Efficiency in Housing Act, S. 1379 [25]

Government cost: None

This bill boosts energy efficiency in federal housing programs, creates an efficiency demonstration program for Section 8 federally subsidized multifamily housing developments, and establishes a revolving loan fund to help home and apartment building owners reduce energy use. Hearings were held in June in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Energy efficiency building codes, ACELA, Section 241 [26]

Government cost: None

This provision directs DOE to establish energy efficiency building code standards to improve efficiency for buildings built after passage by 30 percent over 2006 levels, and by 50 percent over 2006 levels for new residential and commercial buildings by 2016. States are responsible for building code adoption and enforcement.

Restoring America’s Manufacturing Leadership through Energy Efficiency Act, S.661 [27]

Government cost: $1.5 billion

This bill creates a State Partnership Industrial Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Program to help commercial and industrial manufacturers implement technologies that reduce systems energy intensity and cut the use of energy intensive feed stocks. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on S.661.

Renewable energy

Energy from renewable sources—the sun, wind, earth, ocean waves, and biomass—is the future of energy. Other nations are vigorously investing in these clean energy sources. China, Germany, and Spain [28] all have policies to invest in generating electricity from these clean sources and to develop the manufacturing capacity to export these technologies, as well. The United States ceded its leadership in the production of clean energy technologies during the past decade of neglect.

Many states took the lead while the Bush administration ignored the worldwide shift to clean energy. Twenty nine states adopted renewable electricity standards, or renewable portfolio standards, that require utilities to produce a certain percentage of their energy from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources. ACELA includes an RES, but Union of Concerned Scientists analysis [29] determined that its exemptions would produce no more renewable energy than business as usual.

Renewable electricity standard, ACES, Sec. 101 [30]

Government cost: None

ACES’ renewable electricity standard would require utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The new Senate bill should add an interim goal of 10 percent by 2013. This Senate bill should also add a 25 percent renewables requirement by 2025. A 2009 UCS study found that this provision would create nearly 300,000 jobs [31]. ACES would also require them to reduce energy demand by 5 percent by 2020, and this should be included as well.

Clean manufacturing and job training

The worst recession in 80 years has further shrunk an already battered manufacturing sector. The United States can help manufacturers recover by helping them reduce energy use and costs, as well as increase the domestic production of clean energy technologies. It is essential to train people to develop the skills necessary for the clean energy technologies of the future.

Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act, S. 1617 [32]

Government cost: $3 billion

This bill would provide $30 billion for revolving loans to small and midsize firms so that they could retool, expand, or establish domestic clean energy manufacturing operations or make their facilities more energy efficient. Because this is a revolving loan program, the actual cost to the government should be no more than the potential default rate of 10 percent, so the cost to the government is approximately $3 billion. IMPACT would also fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which provides technical assistance to manufacturers hoping to become more productive, efficient, and competitive.

Energy worker training program funding, ACES, Section 422 [33]

Government cost: An additional $25 million

This provision would increase funding to $150 million annually for the Energy Worker Training Program created by the Green Jobs Act, which was included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Clean energy tax provisions

The tax code provides important economic incentives to reduce the risk to investors who make investments in new clean energy technologies. For instance, the production tax credit [34] to help build new wind farms has been essential to keeping wind power competitive with old, dirty, cheap coal-fired electricity. It also saved more than 40,000 [35] wind industry jobs in 2009. Big oil companies also receive billions of dollars annually from tax loopholes [36] that should close. And these savings could fund some clean energy and jobs programs. The Senate Finance Committee has an unprecedented opportunity to use the tax code to boost private investments in efficiency and clean energy technologies that would save energy, reduce energy bills, and create jobs.

Extend effective tax incentives in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, PL 111-5 [37]

Government cost: Up to $50 billion, estimated

ARRA established tax incentives that boost investments in clean energy. Several of them will soon expire. Their extension would keep private funds flowing so that firms don’t move to nations with more robust clean energy markets, such as China. Section 1603 of ARRA allows renewable energy firms to receive grants instead of clean energy production tax credits or investment tax credits for projects that begin before 2011. Extending this date to 2015 would keep private investments flowing to firms that are unable to use tax credits. Section 1705 of ARRA also authorizes DOE to provide loan guarantees to renewable energy, electric transmission, and advanced biofuels that commence construction no later than September 30, 2011. This date should be extended to 2016. The Energy Independence and Security Act established the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program [38], which provides up to $25 billion in direct loans to eligible applicants for the costs of reequipping, expanding, and establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles and the components for such vehicles. These vehicles must provide significant improvements in fuel economy performance.

Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act [39], S. 3324 [40]

Government cost: $5 billion

The SEAM Act provides financial assistance to U.S. manufacturing companies to retool their factories. It extends the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (48C) for two years and increases available tax credits by $5 billion. This program would change to focus more on manufacturing than assembly of goods. Companies that could receive cash grants if they cannot use tax credits. The energy bill should at minimum include an extension of the 48C tax credit. The SEAM Act has been referred to the Committee on Finance.

Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act [41], S. 3405

Government cost: None; it saves nearly $20 billion [36]

This would eliminate big oil and gas company tax deductions, including exemptions from deductibility restrictions and a percentage depletion allowance. Major crude oil and natural gas producers would pay a 13 percent excise tax on the production of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas from federal waters. It would eliminate nearly $20 billion worth of big oil tax subsidies [36] while preserving subsidies for small companies with less than $100 million in revenue.

Provide more funds to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, Baucus Substitute Amendment to H.R. 4213 [42]

Raises: $17.7 billion over 10 years [42]

The provision would increase revenue in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by raising the fee on oil from 8 cents per barrel to 49 cents per barrel. This would provide more resources to clean up future oil blow outs and spills. There is currently $1.5 billion available in this fund.

Limits on pollution from the electric utility industry

Global warming poses a huge public health, national security, economic, and environmental threat. NASA just reported that the previous decade [43] was the hottest on record, while 2009 was the second hottest year [43]. And temperature data from 2010 shows that the past six months were the hottest on record [44]. The threat from global warming looms ever larger.

Yet too many senators are reluctant to address this problem. Some senators deny the problem exists, [45] while others want to maintain status quo energy policies [46] in a futile effort to prevent changes to local industries. Still others are worried that big oil will spend millions of dollars [47] or more to defeat them if they vote for action.

The Senate usually requires a super majority of 60 votes to pass bills, and so there is almost no chance that it will pass a bill that reduces global warming pollution from the three primary emitters: coal fired power plants, motor vehicles, and large industrial sources. Yet we could make some real progress if senators were to support reductions for carbon pollution from at least one of the biggest sources—such as power plants. These are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases in the United States, producing one third of carbon dioxide pollution. [48]

Even a modest step such as putting a price on carbon pollution from utilities would be important to reduce pollution and generate revenue to pay for the aforementioned clean energy programs and incentives. Sen. Mary Landrieu [49] (D-LA) noted that, “In all of the climate bills, there are significant revenues generated, so that is a possibility. But if we did an energy-only bill, we’re going to be struggling about how to provide revenues.â€

Utility industry lobbyists are pressuring senators to delay existing [50]limits on power plant pollution, including acid rain, smog, soot, and mercury as part of a proposal to limit global warming pollution from utilities. President Obama or the Senate should under no circumstances agree to weaken health protections from these hazardous and toxic pollutants in exchange for a limit on carbon pollution. Senators should instead work with utilities, environmentalists, and other stake holders to ensure harmonious reductions of all these pollutants, including carbon.

There are numerous reports about various senators drafting a declining limit on global warming pollution from power plants. Until these proposals are released and analyzed, the most effective provision might be one that incorporates ideas from various bills. These include the American Power Act [51], Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733 [52], and the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act [53]. Any utility-only proposal should include the following provisions, many of which are in APA, CEJAP, or CLEAR.

* Utilities should commit to do their share by reducing their emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 42 percent by 2030 (APA).

* The program should begin in 2013 (APA).

* Each emitter should have to have one pollution allowance for every ton of pollution it emits (APA, CEJAPA, CLEAR).

* Only power plants that emit 25,000 tons or more of greenhouse gases annually should be required to have allowances (APA, CEJAPA).

* The federal government should auction off the allowances, beginning with a minimum price of $14 per ton and a maximum price of $25 per ton in 2013. This floor price should level the price between dirty coal fired power and cleaner natural gas generated electricity [54].

* The floor and ceiling prices should rise by 3 percent per year plus inflation (APA).

* Only covered emitters should be allowed to buy allowances, and unused allowances should be sold in the government auction. No allowance trading between emitters would be allowed (CLEAR).

* Two-thirds of the allowances should be given to the local distribution companies, which must return their value to their ratepayers (APA).

* The proceeds from auctioning the remaining one-third of allowances should be invested in additional protection for low-income households; clean energy technology research, development and deployment; carbon capture and storage technology research and pilot projects; deficit reduction; and, protection of tropical forests (APA).

Conclusion

The villagers in “Stone Soup†were initially too selfish to provide the visitors with anything to eat. So the soldiers boiled a giant pot of water and added stones to it. One by one, the villagers added vegetables and other ingredients. When it was ready, the soldiers removed the stones and they joined the villagers in a feast.

The Senate has been stymied for months because too many senators do not want to give the public what it needs: comprehensive clean energy jobs, oil reduction, and climate pollution reduction legislation. Some senators only want to address a small part of the problem. This one wants to invest only in energy research, while that one will only support a limit on some, but not all, carbon pollution.

Senators should follow the villagers’ lead by contributing their most effective clean energy ideas to the comprehensive energy bill that Sen. Reid plans to offer on July 26. If they work together, Americans can anticipate a feast of more jobs, less oil use, a more secure nation, and less pollution.

This is cross-posted [55] from the American Progress website. Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow, and Susan Lyon and Tina Ramos are Special Assistants for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

For more on how the Senate can move forward on energy reform, see:

* Senate Oil Savings’ Greatest Hits [13]

* The “Energy-Only Bill†Mirage [56]

* Will We Bet on a Clean Energy Economy? [37]

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

URL to article: http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/16/the-stone-soup-clean-energy-and-climate-bill/

[Bruce551]

23 Jul 2010 7:46 AM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-23-state-and-epa-climate-action-become-key-as-senate-gives-up/

The Senate on Thursday officially gave up on trying to pass a climate bill in the foreseeable future -- so what's plan B? Leadership from states and federal agencies.

A mishmash of state plans and existing laws doesn't sound like much. Climate experts have long preferred a national, economy-wide approach to cutting carbon pollution. But existing and announced state plans would do more good than you might assume.

Ten northeastern states already run a functional cap-and-trade system, and 11 Western states and Canadian provinces are planning to start their own, the Western Climate Initiative, in 2012. And the Environmental Protection Agency continues its own march toward regulating climate pollution -- which the Supreme Court directed it to do.

So it's pretty darn useful that the World Resources Institute has a new report out today that calculates what exactly states and federal agencies could accomplish in the absence of Congressional action. The WRI research group looked at current and in-the-works state programs, as well as existing law directing federal agencies to cut carbon emissions. They measured the impact of these combined activities against President Obama's pledge in Copenhagen last year to cut emissions "in the range of 17 percent" below 2005 levels by 2020.

The top-line finding: States and federal agencies could keep us on track in the near-term -- until about 2016 -- but after that they would be insufficient. That's the best-case scenario. Because there's so much uncertainty about how state and federal agency plans will be executed, WRI mapped out "lackluster," "middle-of-the-road," and "go-getter" scenarios.

Here's how each would perform compared to business as usual:

The bottom line on that graph charts the CO2 reductions the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the whole world must achieve to avert catastrophic climate change. But even meeting those targets only gets us down to 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide-equivalent in the atmosphere; scientific consensus holds that 350 ppm is the safe upper limit.

WRI Video:

The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks?

I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?â€

Good Video-YouTube - Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes

[eagle]

Bruce wrote:

I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?â€

Its no conspiracy theory Bruce, thats exactly what the oil industry and big business have been doing. They simply buy the scientific evidence they need and put it into place. What is passed off as scientific studies is easily bought. The movie Fuel states that 90% of its funding comes from oil industry permits. The FDA is made up of x Monsantos employees and vice versa. Thru greed we have evolved into one big phoney song and dance with the media the syringe. Arrrrg

[eagle]

I heard a comercial for BP on the radio. The person professed to be a BP filling station owner who appreciated peoples business and saying how she knows we all know BP is doing all they can to stop the spill and protect the gulf coastlines. All with a down home country accent. Golly shocks willikers we all knows they really cares huh :shock: it doesnt get any deeper :twisted:

[Bruce551]

I'm against it!!!

[Bruce551]

Is a renewable electricity standard really back from the dead?

by Randy Rieland

27 Jul 2010 11:09 AM

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-27-is-a-renewable-electricity-standard-really-back-from-the-dead/

Now that climate and energy legislation in the Senate has shriveled to a husk, the chance that maybe, just maybe, a renewable electricity standard (RES) could be added to the bill is raising last-minute hopes that all is not lost.

Sure, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he couldn't drum up enough support for an RES. But on Friday, 27 Senate Democrats sent a letter to Reid, making the case that a formal federal commitment to renewable energy is key to encouraging serious private investment in wind and solar power. And on Monday, a Republican, Sen. Sam Brownback from Kansas, a state with a lot of wind, jumped on board. That was enough to get Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who is now doing work for the American Wind Energy Association, to claim that the magical 60 votes are there to pass an RES amendment.

Fear of commitment: But would an RES really justify popping some corks, especially if it's likely to fall way below green groups' goal of having 25 percent of the country's electricity come from renewable sources by 2025? Bryan Walsh, in Time's Ecocentric blog, explains the benefits of an RES:

Too often U.S. policy on renewable power has been like a truck stuck in rush-hour traffic: stop-and-start. Generous tax subsidies help the wind or solar [industry] grow -- but when they're allowed [to] expire, the industry suddenly collapses.

By requiring America's utilities to shift some of their production to clean energy, an RES could finally provide the renewable power industry the long-term certainty it needs to grow -- creating new jobs along the way. "If you want to lead and you're serious about green-collar job creation, then you need to set a goal," said Iowa Governor Chet Culver, whose state gets around 20 percent of its electricity from wind. "I could not be more direct in my pleas to Congress to pass this renewable electricity standard. Our energy future depends on it."

Kate Sheppard, writing for Mother Jones, adds this:

Solar and wind advocates say that even the House-passed standard is actually less ambitious than the path that the industry is already on ... But at this point, they'll take anything to put the U.S. government on record in support of a renewables mandate.

"Getting a signal in place that we're open for business is going to be critical to build the base in the U.S. and attract manufacturing," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association ... "In this political climate we have to do what we can do."

A slick maneuver: Without an RES, Reid's bill is thin gruel. It includes funding for Home Star, which would provide rebates to people who do energy-saving retrofits on their homes; funding for a natural-gas truck fleet; money for the Land and Conservation Fund; and, of course, a crackdown on offshore oil drilling. It's that last part that could turn things ugly again. As Coral Davenport writes in Politico's Morning Energy blog, the bill likely will include elements that Republicans won't support, the goal being that they can then be portrayed as backers of Big Oil:

Possible provisions likely to raise Republican and oil industry hackles: a financial assurance requirement, in which offshore drillers would have to front capital to prove they could cover the costs of a spill or other disaster -- a particularly onerous requirement for smaller independent firms; a provision to funnel new oil royalty revenues directly to the Land and Water Conservation Fund rather than to state coffers; and the retention of the Menendez limitless liability requirement, rather than a compromise $10 billion cap.

Cap-and-gag: Cap-and-trade may be dead for the rest of us, but for a lot of House Democrats, it's feeling like acid reflux. Last summer, most Dems voted for the House's climate bill, which included a cap-and-trade provision. They figured that eventually the Senate would follow suit, President Obama would sign it, and they could say they had struck a blow for clean energy and energy independence. But now that the Senate has dropped cap-and-trade like a bag of skunks, those House Dems feel they've been left out to dry, easy pickings for Republican opponents blasting away at "cap-and-tax," as Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray report in The Washington Post.

Perhaps we've been too hasty: Finally, we may have found just the thing to get Republicans to start taking climate change seriously. As Anna Gorman writes in the Los Angeles Times, a new study concludes that devastation of farmland in Mexico brought on by global warming could spark a mass migration of Mexicans into the U.S.