By Teryn Norris & Devon Swezey

You know the world is changing when the president’s first trip to Asia is defined by a new U.S. foreign policy dubbed “strategic reassurance” – convincing China that the United States has no intention of containing its growing power or endangering its foreign investments. As the New York Times put it, “When President Obama visits China for the first time on Sunday, he will, in many ways, be assuming the role of profligate spender coming to pay respects to his banker.”

You also know times are changing when China, the world’s greatest polluter, and other Asian nations are poised to dominate the burgeoning global clean-tech industry by out-investing the United States. That’s the conclusion of a large new report we co-authored called "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," released this week by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (see coverage in Financial Times and Wall Street Journal). The report is the first to thoroughly benchmark clean energy competitiveness in four nations – China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States – and finds the following:

“Asia’s rising ‘clean technology tigers’ – China, Japan, and South Korea – have already passed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies and over the next five years will out-invest the U.S. three-to-one in these sectors… While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas, the jobs, tax revenues, and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asian nations… Should the investment gap persist, the U.S. will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys.”

What do these two changes have in common? They both reflect the accelerating shift of global power from America to Asia, caused in large part by the serious mismanagement of U.S. economic policy.

The Pacific power shift is not a new phenomenon, and the Obama administration is wise to seek stronger ties with the region. The U.S. should applaud Asia’s growth, which is partly an outcome of our own success at promoting economic liberalism and international development. This shift in power is not a zero-sum game, nor should it be: the U.S. and Asia should avoid trade wars at all costs, and we should seize opportunities for partnership on a range of issues, from climate change to nuclear proliferation.

But the growing pace of this power shift should be a cause of major concern for Americans, and it should raise serious questions about our economic policies at the highest level. While the U.S. economy has suffered greatly from a crisis produced by its own financial sector – losing millions of jobs, trillions in economic output, and demanding huge spending packages financed by borrowed money – China has shrugged off the global recession with high levels of growth and self-financed stimulus, all while purchasing billions of Treasury bills to fund a U.S. deficit that has reached historic highs.

Last November, addressing the nation on the evening of his election, President Obama declared that “a new era of American leadership is at hand.” And indeed, his new administration has taken significant steps to remake U.S. foreign policy. But unless the U.S. quickly improves its economic competitiveness, our global leadership will be severely damaged. What is demanded now is a major, coordinated national project to regain our economic competitiveness in strategic sectors while permanently correcting the imbalances that led to the Great Recession.

Correcting Imbalances & Fixing Finance

Speaking at the San Francisco Fed last month, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke declared it “extraordinarily urgent” that the U.S. and Asia take steps to prevent a revival of global economic imbalances. There is now broad consensus on how these imbalances – the huge gaps in trade deficits and surpluses, and the associated gaps in national savings, consumption, and investment rates – helped caused the housing bubble and the Great Recession. Alan Greenspan offered a concise explanation in a widely-read column this spring:

“The presumptive cause of the world-wide decline in long-term [mortgage] rates was the tectonic shift in the early 1990s by much of the developing world from heavy emphasis on central planning to increasingly dynamic, export-led market competition. The result was a surge in growth in China and a large number of other emerging market economies that led to an excess of global intended savings relative to intended capital investment.”

In other words, the U.S. housing bubble was caused in large part by the buildup of savings in emerging market economies, especially China, accumulated from their large trade surpluses. As this large “pool of money” was invested internationally, it drove down the costs of borrowing, drove up subprime lending, and created large demand for mortgage-backed securities. This era of easy credit – combined with the use of “innovative” financial instruments, which relaxed mortgage standards, concealed risk, and enabled the mass packaging and sale of these securities – gave rise to the U.S. housing bubble.

This “global pool of money” wouldn’t have existed without the U.S. running an enormous trade deficit, relying on imports and debt to support a high consumption rate – hence the global “imbalance” of high-saving versus high-consuming countries. The U.S. deficit in the trade of goods and services in 2008 was $695 billion, according to the Department of Commerce, compared to China’s surplus of $297 billion.

Speaking in Tokyo last week, President Obama extended this problem to its logical conclusion, calling for rebalanced growth and a new U.S. economic strategy based on exports: “One of the important lessons this recession has taught us is the limits of depending primarily on American consumers and Asian exports to drive growth… [our] new strategy will mean that we save more and spend less, reform our financial systems, reduce our long-term deficit and borrowing. It will also mean a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell all over the world.”

The implication is clear: the United States must shift away from a “financial” economy to an “innovation” economy, one that focuses on creating industries that produce real innovative products to sell around the world. After years of creating imaginary wealth on the pile of sand that was the U.S. financial sector, America must once again get into the business of producing real goods and services. This means reducing the size of the financial sector and the Wall Street “brain drain” – which has distracted the nation’s best and brightest minds from the work of real innovation and entrepreneurship – and refocusing on productive, export-oriented industries. And it means adopting a new era of innovation policies to ensure the U.S. economy is the most competitive in the world, directing targeted public investments into strategic technologies, infrastructure, and high-tech education programs.

This new economic strategy is necessary not just for short-term recovery, but for avoiding future credit bubbles and financial crises, slashing our trade and budget deficit, producing more innovative technologies to improve our everyday lives, and regaining our international leadership.

The Clean Energy Race

What’s the biggest new industry that can boost America’s exports, grow the economy, create better jobs, and tap our innovative potential? In a word, clean-tech.

Here’s why: Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously meeting the surging demand for energy in developing countries, requires the development and deployment of clean energy technologies on a massive scale. Indeed, while global energy demand is expected to double or even triple by 2050, emissions must fall by at least 80 percent over the same period to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Meeting this challenge requires nothing short of a revolutionary shift toward clean energy and a dramatically increased level of investment in these technologies. The International Energy Agency estimates that achieving a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 will require total additional global investments of $45 trillion. "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" notes that “global private investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies alone is estimated to reach $450 billion annually by 2012 and $600 billion by 2020, and much larger if recent market opportunity estimates are realized.” Recognizing these trends, an increasing number of analysts are calling the clean-tech industry a “guaranteed-growth” sector.

No wonder President Obama has made this his signature statement: “The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy.”

Make no mistake: healthy international competition in the clean-tech industry will not hinder the global transition to clean energy, but rather will act as one of the most powerful accelerators for clean energy development and deployment in the world. International collaboration, such as technology partnerships, will be important to promote clean energy development in China and other developing countries, but we also need to think about how to leverage competitive forces. International competition in the clean energy industry can improve technologies and reduce their price at a rapid pace, and governments can play a more active role in promoting these activities. For example, we should consider establishing an official “U.S.-China Clean Tech Competition” – jointly funded by each country – to promote competition between U.S. and Chinese firms in developing the most innovative technologies and business models.

Unfortunately, the United States is already falling behind its competitors in this critical industry. Just for starters, we rely on foreign companies for the majority of our wind turbines, produce less than 10 percent of the world’s solar cells, and we’re losing ground on hybrid and electric vehicle technology and manufacturing. China leads the global production of solar cells and wind turbines, and it is expected to become the number one solar market within five years. By 2012, China, Japan, and South Korea are expected to produce 1.6 million hybrid gas-electric or electric vehicles annually compared to North America, which is projected to produce 267,000, less than a fifth as many, according to industry forecasts.

China, Japan, and South Korea plan to gain even greater “first-mover” advantages and solidify this lead with coordinated and comprehensive policies based largely on direct government investment. These governments are expected to invest a total of $509 billion in clean technology over the next five years, compared to $172 billion in the United States, assuming passage of the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act and including current budget appropriations and recently enacted stimulus measures. According to a recent Deutsche Bank report, “generous and well-targeted [clean-tech] incentives” backed by “comprehensive and integrated government plans” in China and Japan will create a low-risk environment for investors and stimulate high levels of private investment.

As John Doerr and Jeff Immelt, two of the country’s top business leaders, recently wrote in the Washington Post, “We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is held by China, which understands the importance of controlling its energy future. China's commitment to developing clean energy technologies and markets is breathtaking.”

A New Project for Energy Competitiveness

Without a large national project to regain competitiveness in the clean-tech sector, the United States will miss a major opportunity to grow our economy, correct our trade imbalance, and reduce our national deficit. Indeed, even if we transition to clean sources of energy, we risk trading our dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign clean energy.

Fortunately, the United States has a history of regaining competitiveness in strategic industries. Decades ago, after trailing Europe in aviation and aerospace, we raced ahead through sustained federal support for aviation technology development. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, we invested heavily in education, science, and technology, enabling us to put the first man on the moon and achieve breakthroughs in information-age technology. When the Japanese took the lead in the semiconductor industry in the 1980s, we formed SEMATECH, a public-private partnership that successfully repositioned the U.S. as the global market leader.

What each of these stories has in common is direct public investment in technology innovation and deployment, education, and infrastructure, aimed at generating competitive private industries. Fareed Zakaria explains the primary reasons for America’s previous innovation leadership in the current cover story of Newsweek: “The third tidal wave was massive government funding… After World War II, the Cold War drove this funding to new highs, so that by the 1950s, the United States was spending 3 percent of GDP on R&D, which amounted to a majority of the total spending on science on the planet. Government funding of basic research has been astonishingly productive.” (Zakaria cites a report that one of us co-authored called “Case Studies in American Innovation.”)

Indeed, the United States did not invent the Internet by enforcing a cap and trade system on fax machines, nor did we create the personal computer by taxing typewriters. Those who suggest we can simply rely on indirect, market-based mechanisms to achieve a clean energy revolution fail to understand the history of technology innovation and competitiveness, and they risk relegating our clean-tech industry to second-class status or worse. Indeed, the same Deutsche Bank report above noted that the U.S. is a “moderate-risk” country compared to the lower-risk environment of China and Japan, because we rely on “a more volatile market incentive approach and has suffered from a start-stop approach in some areas.”

What is demanded today is a national energy competitiveness project based on the success of past U.S. innovation policy, including targeted support for technology research, development, demonstration, deployment, education, infrastructure, and manufacturing. A large and growing group of energy experts, think tanks, and companies – including Google, Brookings Institution, dozens of Nobel Laureates, Association of American Universities, Breakthrough Institute, and Third Way – has united behind a target for federal clean energy R&D at $15 billion per year. Unfortunately, the climate bill under consideration in the Senate would only invest around $1.4 billion per year in energy R&D. Similarly, the bill would only offer a one-time capitalization of $10 billion for a Clean Energy Deployment Administration. Another good provision is the IMPACT Act, focused on clean technology manufacturing, but here again it is unclear whether it will be adequately funded.

As we conclude in “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant”: “If the United States hopes to compete for new clean energy industries it must close the widening gap between U.S. and Asian government investments in research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand. Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia’s clean tech tigers. To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure.”

The Energy Generation

The remaining piece is clean energy education. It is well known that America is falling behind in high-tech education. What’s less well understood is that nearly half the U.S. energy workforce is expected to retire over the next decade. Federal investment in education, from the G.I. Bill to the National Defense Education Act, was vital for U.S. competitiveness in the post-war era, and it will be vital for competing in the burgeoning clean energy industry. As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman recently put it, “If you had to explain America’s economic success with one word, that word would be ‘education.’”

In April, President Obama proposed an important initiative to inspire the next generation of clean energy innovators. The program, called RE-ENERGYSE (Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge), would prepare thousands of highly skilled scientists and engineers to enter clean-energy fields by supporting energy education programs at universities, technical colleges, and K-12 schools. According to the Department of Energy, the program would educate between 5,000 and 8,500 energy scientists, engineers, and other professionals by 2015, rising to 10,000 to 17,000 professionals by 2020.

RE-ENERGYSE is critical for reclaiming U.S. leadership in the clean energy sector. As a group of over 100 universities, professional associations, and student groups stated in a recent letter to the Senate, “RE-ENERGYSE is an innovative program that will train America’s future energy workforce, accelerate our transition to a prosperous clean energy economy, and ensure that we lead the world’s burgeoning clean technology industries.”

Unfortunately, Congress failed to provide any funding for RE-ENERGYSE for 2010. But the administration is not giving up, and it intends to pursue funding for RE-ENERGYSE in its 2011 budget proposal. College students have a unique role to play in advancing this initiative and the broader energy competitiveness agenda. RE-ENERGYSE needs a much stronger base of support to pass Congress next year, and as the primary stakeholders in the program, students can be uniquely influential in organizing a coalition of supporters and directly voicing their concerns to members of Congress. That’s why students at Stanford University are currently launching a national effort called Americans for Energy Leadership, aimed at advancing RE-ENERGYSE and inspiring the next generation of energy innovators.

Fifty years ago, in the wake of the launch of Sputnik, the United States launched a massive national effort to lead the space race and win the Cold War. Today, the clean energy race represents one of the greatest opportunities and challenges for American leadership in a generation. If we do not take immediate action to launch a national energy competitiveness project based on large, direct, and coordinated innovation policies, we will effectively cede the clean-energy industry to Asia and other competitors. The mass majority of exports, jobs, tax revenues, and other economic benefits will accrue to foreign countries, and we will miss a historic opportunity to achieve a new era of American leadership. The choice should be clear.

--
Originally published by The Stanford Review

Teryn Norris is a Senior Advisor at the Breakthrough Institute, Public Policy major at Stanford University, and Director of Americans for Energy Leadership. Devon Swezey is Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute and graduated from Stanford University in 2008. They are co-authors of the new report, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian Nations Set to Dominate the Clean Energy Race by Out-Investing the United States.”

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Read Part 1 here.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), by an 11-1 vote. Since this was the third day of a boycott by Republicans on the committee, the absence of minority members prevented senators from voting on any amendments to the bill due to committee rules. The Senate Finance and Agriculture Committees must now promptly debate and vote on the provisions of the bill under their jurisdiction.

Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans are ostensibly skipping the meetings because they want the Environmental Protection Agency to redo its analysis of CEJAPA with assumptions that produce a result more to their liking.

On the afternoon of the first day of committee deliberations on the bill, EPA Director of Congressional Affairs David McIntosh appeared before the committee to reiterate that CEJAPA and the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), were so similar that computer models would produce nearly the exact same result. He said "economic computer models are not designed to detect fine-grained details in this kind of legislation. So changes in the legislation at that level of detail will not even show up in the economic computer modeling."

If the committee made changes to the bill during its deliberations, it would significantly reduce the analysis's effectiveness. In other words, modeling CEJAPA would require at least $135,000 taxpayer dollars and five weeks to produce nearly the identical result for a bill that will change while the ink on the analysis is still drying. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) noted today, "as soon as you amend it [CEJAPA], you change it again. What are they going to do, wait five weeks to analyze each amendment?"

The Republican committee members' quixotic boycott is not really about getting more in-depth analysis. As McIntosh told the committee, there was no EPA analysis at all before the Environment Committee debated and voted on the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act in December 2007. Yet the committee Republicans did not boycott those sessions. And there was no EPA, Congressional Budget Office, or Energy Information Administration analysis before the Senate Energy Committee passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on May 26, 2005. Then-Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) was chairman at the time. Nor was there a CBO, EIA, or EPA analysis before the Senate Energy Committee passed the American Clean Energy Leadership Act on July 16, 2009.

Instead of seeking analysis, this boycott is really designed to help defeat, weaken, or stall clean-energy legislation. Outside the Capitol this effort is lead by Big Oil and the Chamber of Commerce. Inside the Capitol, Environment Committee Republicans are seeking still more analysis as an excuse for delay. In fact, at least four of the committee's seven Republicans announced their opposition to the legislation before the bill was even introduced. They are boycotting the committee to get more analysis of a bill they already oppose.

McCain presidential campaign pollster Bill McInturff suggested that Republicans' opposition to greenhouse gas pollution reductions is partly due to politics. "There are two confluences. One is the actual policy and two is the perspective of, ‘Are you helping President Obama?' Part of the pressure on these Republicans is to not be seen as the deciding vote to help a major Obama initiative."

These and other opponents of clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction legislation are ignoring the numerous benefits of action, and the huge economic burden of business as usual. As old New York Yankees Manager Casey Stengel used to say "You can see a lot by looking." In their faux search for more information about CEJAPA, opponents of the bill aren't seeing its myriad benefits. Now that the Senate Environment Committee has passed the CEJAPA, perhaps other senators will take a look.

Earlier this week, we outlined six benefits of the bill and explained why the bill should be passed by the committee. Here are nine more benefits as the legislation moves forward.

7. The Clean Energy Jobs Act is an "all of the above" bill  

Many public officials have said they favor global warming solutions that include "all of the above" energy sources. In September, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) endorsed the "'all-of-the-above' approach to energy policy," that includes "development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements."  

CEJAPA embraces this notion. Its meaningful, declining limit on carbon pollution would, in effect, establish a price on this pollution. The bill includes provisions to protect ratepayers from electricity price spikes, and it would generate revenues from polluters that could be used for clean-energy initiatives. The price would level the playing field between currently underpriced, cheaper electricity generated from dirty, old coal-fired power plants and newer, cleaner sources of electricity -- regardless of whether these cleaner sources come from renewables, nuclear, natural gas, cleaner use of coal, or other technologies.  

The Clean Energy Jobs Act also has other provisions that would spur investments in a number of clean-energy technologies. These include:  

8. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will reduce electricity bills  

The EPA's recent comprehensive analysis of CEJAPA predicts that with or without the climate bill, "household consumption [of energy] will continue to grow" and that clean-energy legislation would only slow this growth by about one or two-tenths of a percent on average by 2030, with substantial net gains in the short run, and very modest costs spread out in the future.  

Consumers are protected in the bill by the allocation of 30 percent of the revenues from the pollution reduction program to regulated local electric distribution companies, which are required to use the money to "protect consumers from electricity price increases" (Section 772).  

Every large emitter of greenhouse gas pollution must have a permit for every ton of pollution. In the early years of the program some of the allowances are given to electric utilities for free, who must then return the value of these allowances to their ratepayers. Heating oil, propane, and regulated gas distribution companies will also receive some free allowances to protect their consumers against increases in heating costs.  

Here are a few different predictions for what consumers might save under the efficiency and consumer protection provisions in CEJAPA:  

9. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will train workers for the clean-energy jobs of the future  

Growing new industries for clean technologies like advanced nuclear plants, renewables, and energy efficiency will require workers with the skills to design, build, and maintain this new infrastructure. The Clean Energy Jobs Act establishes two nationwide worker assistance and job training programs: one for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and another specific for nuclear industry worker training. These programs will help American workers transition from outdated, inefficient industries to new industries that produce or deploy the clean-energy technologies of the future, and they would help ensure that our economy can remain competitive in the race for clean energy markets.  

10. The Clean Energy Jobs Act would protect the most vulnerable people  

The bill distributes a significant portion of allowances from the pollution reduction program -- 15 percent initially, rising to 18.5 percent by 2029 -- to pay for direct rebates to low-income households. This would ensure that these households do not suffer from increases in energy prices or other goods due to global warming pollution clean-up costs.   The Congressional Budget Office's most recent analysis of the House-passed ACES predicted that the combined effect of consumer protection measures in the bill would actually result in an average net income gain of about $125 per year per household for the least well off 20 percent of Americans.  

11. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will drive competition and innovation  

In addition to finally putting clean-energy technologies on even footing with dirty sources of energy, the bill actually creates incentives for innovation, knowledge sharing, and the transferring of clean-energy technologies from laboratories to assembly lines. It allocates up to 4 percent of allowances competitively to "energy innovation hubs," where companies, knowledge institutions, scientists, entrepreneurs, and government laboratories can collaborate to develop and commercialize new clean-energy technologies, manufacturing processes, and business models.   A recent study by CAP shows how the regional innovation clusters that this policy would help foster would "create jobs, create businesses and, of course, stimulate long-term economic growth."  

12. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will give a much-needed boost to our manufacturing sector  

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are very sensitive to the impact that pollution reduction efforts may have on energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries. CEJAPA therefore provides assistance to such industries, including steel, glass, paper, cement, and chemical companies. The bill would allocate 15 percent of allowance revenue in 2014 and 2015 -- and decline after until 2050 -- to help manufacturers retool and invest in more efficient process and equipment.  

The bill would also help American auto plants retool to manufacture the super-efficient cars of the future by providing 4 percent of allowances for clean-vehicle technologies. Finally, allowances for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program and "clean energy innovation hubs" will help U.S. manufacturers produce clean-energy and energy efficiency components more efficiently, cheaply, and quickly.  

If other countries do not do their part to help avert dangerous global climate change, an additional border measure in the bill that is "consistent with international obligations" will protect against "carbon leakage" -- or making pollution reductions in the United States only to see increases in other countries -- and ensure that clean-energy manufacturing jobs stay in the United States.  

13. The Clean Energy Jobs Act has public support  

Many recent polls show that Americans continue to view climate change as a serious threat, and they support clean-energy legislation. Here are just a few examples:  

14. Business leaders want clean-energy reform  

Many American businesses leaders are advocating for comprehensive energy legislation that includes a declining limit on global warming pollution. They understand that a clean-energy economy will help their businesses grow, and they are putting their money where their mouth is.  

In an open letter signed by 181 global financial institutions representing $13 trillion in capital (equivalent to nearly one-fifth of the globe's annual gross domestic product), entrepreneurs and investors implored world leaders to "reach a strong post-2012 climate change agreement" that sets "a global target for emission reductions of 50-85 percent by 2050." CEJAPA sets a target of 83 percent reduction by 2050.  

Major businesses such as Apple, PG&E, Exelon, and PNM Resources have quit the Chamber of Commerce over its staunch opposition to clean-energy legislation. Other major chamber members such as Nike, Duke Energy Corporation, and Cisco Systems have publicly supported reform and rejected the chamber's views. Meanwhile, Fortune 500 companies including BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, General Motors, Siemens, Shell, and General Electric formed the United States Climate Action Partnership, calling for immediate action to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership plan forms the basis of the CEJAPA.  

15. Inaction will harm the economy  

Thousands of scientists, economists, and businesses understand that our unsustainable energy system threatens our economy, public health, and environment. A recent poll of 144 economists who have published about climate change in the top 25 economics journals found that 94 percent favor the United States joining an international climate agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 92 percent wanted a cap-and-trade system to establish a price on carbon, and 84 percent agreed that global warming's effects "create significant risks" to the economy.  

In addition to producing global warming pollution, the combustion of fossil fuels exacts huge public health and economic costs. A recent exhaustive analysis by the National Academy of Sciences found that an average of 54 Americans die every day due to breathing air made dirty from fossil fuel pollution. This hidden impact costs $120 billion per year or more than $1 million per person per day.  

On top of the health costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050. These figures are based on an ongoing interagency effort by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation to accurately value the economic cost of carbon pollution, but the report warns that these estimate are "very likely to be underestimations."  

A report authored by economists at Tufts and Cambridge Universities and released by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the increased hurricanes, droughts, floods, infrastructure damage, and higher heating and cooling bills due to global warming will cost Americans an average of $1.3 billion per day by 2050 -- $506 billion annually, or 1.5 percent of GDP -- if we do not reform our energy system and slash global warming pollution.  

None of these numbers take into account the irreversible climate change -- driven damage to our nation's natural heritage  -- our glaciers, rivers, wetlands, and arboreal and ocean ecosystems. The National Resources Defense Council suggests that putting a price tag on these difficult-to-value ecological impacts would cause the price tag for climate disasters to double.  

Between the $120 billion of hidden annual health costs that are predicted to increase until 2050, the $350 billion per year sent abroad to buy foreign oil, and the $506 billion necessary to deal with weather, infrastructure, and increased energy demand, doing nothing to solve our energy problems today means dumping at least a $2.6 billion daily bill on the next generation until 2050 and beyond.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Cross-posted from the Wonk Room and co-written with energy team interns Jaren Love and Michael McGovern at the Center for American Progress.

Senate Republicans are demanding lengthy economic analyses of progressive clean energy policy, despite having spent careers voting for and against major energy legislation without such delay. This week the Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted its debate on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the economic impacts was not sufficiently thorough. Before they launched their boycott, committee ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) demanded a "full analysis" that satisfied their particular requirements:

As we've noted in previous letters and requests, getting a thorough, comprehensive economic analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill is an essential component of a meaningful legislative process. To accomplish that, EPA needs to do a series of model runs examining key provisions in the bill, with a number of sensitivity analyses on critical issues, including, among others, the availability of offsets, potential growth in nuclear power, and the extent of emissions reductions by developing countries. Anything less than a full analysis of this kind will be unacceptable.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Republican Conference, piled on: "We want to participate in any clean energy bill, but we're not willing to do that until we know what it costs."

"It undermines the credibility of the process," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "It's not constructive to the process to proceed without knowing what it costs."

On Monday, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) joined Inhofe to demand a "complete and substantive analysis of any bill that attempts to address this issue" and "complete data and a thorough vetting" before the EPW Committee took action.

Yesterday, Sens. Gregg, Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to the EPA saying, "We cannot support legislation" without "a clear picture of the bill's impacts on our economy," saying the EPA analysis needs to be completed "prior to any action in EPW."

Their arguments fall flat, however, because these and other senators routinely voted on energy and global warming bills without any analysis. Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office, or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations. In several cases, there was no full analysis before the bill was voted on by the entire Senate:

- Energy Policy Act of 2002 (H.R. 4): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after both committee passage and full Senate consideration.

- Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139): EIA analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

- Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 4/S. 1005): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after committee passage. Limited CBO analysis completed before full Senate consideration, EIA analysis after.

- Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (S. 342): No analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

- Energy Policy Act of 2005 (S. 10): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

- Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

- America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191): EIA and EPA analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

- American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462): CBO analysis completed after committee passage.

Sen. Murkowski notably had no problem voting for the American Clean Energy Leadership Act this June, even though CBO analysis was only completed in September.

The fact that these and other bills moved through committees without any analysis sharply contrasts with the mountain of assessments of this year's clean energy legislation. Full EPA, EIA, and CBO analyses were conducted of the House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), and the EPA has conducted additional analysis of the Senate legislation. The Republicans' interest in analysis is little more than an excuse for delay and defeat of clean energy legislation. In one of the boycotted hearings this week, Sen. Boxer noted that the "EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation" about the related House bill. EPA Director of Congressional Affairs David McIntosh appeared before the Committee to reiterate that CEJAPA and ACES were very similar:

[EPA economic] models are not designed to detect fine-grain details in this kind of legislation. So changes in the legislation at that level of detail will not even show up in the economic computer model. Second, it costs the EPA at least $135,000 and 1600 man-hours of time to run a bill through the agency's full suite of economic computer models.

Nonetheless, Republican boycotters wanted EPA to spend five weeks and $135,000 of taxpayer money to conduct a redundant analysis before they would agree to a vote.

Today, the committee approved CEJAPA on an 11-1 vote. Every Republican was absent without leave.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Future historians will inevitably judge all 21st-century presidents on just two issues: global warming and the clean energy transition. If the world doesn’t stop catastrophic climate change then all presidents, indeed, all of us, will be seen as failures and rightfully so.

In that sense, what team Obama has accomplished in the year since he was elected is nothing less than an unprecedented reversal of decades of unsustainable national policy forced down the throat of the American public by conservatives. Three game-changing accomplishments stand out:

You can see more details on these here -- “Sure Obama ended the Bush depression, cut taxes for 98% of working families, and jumpstarted the shift to a clean energy economy with a $100 billion in stimulus funds -- but what has the green FDR done lately?”

All that remains for Obama to claim the title as the green FDR is getting 60 votes or more for Senate passage of a climate and clean energy bill. That now appears likely thanks to the breakthrough Senate climate partnership between Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.).  Indeed, E&E News’s latest analysis shows, “At least 67 senators are in play” on the climate bill.  And Graham and Kerry are set to meet “with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, as well as with Obama’s top climate adviser, Carol M. Browner, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to discuss a possible compromise.”  If these White House negotiations succeed, then I also think an international climate deal is likely, with the framework to be laid out in the Copenhagen meeting this December, and details finalized next year after Obama signs a domestic bill.

All this together won’t guarantee that we preserve a livable climate, but it will give future presidents -- working in concert with other countries -- a fighting chance to do so.

That said, conservative denial and obstructionism remains strong, and a climate bill could still fail if team Obama does not remain vigilant. Obama is fulfilling his promise in the climate and clean energy arena, but much hard work remains.

One final point — to those (including me!) who wished that Obama would have taken a more aggressive and public role in shaping and lobbying for a climate and clean energy bill, I have only three words: health care reform. If you think a significantly stronger climate bill could be had in this political atmosphere, I’d just ask you to review the final House vote (and the state of play of the Senate bill). Remember, on the most transparently dire issue in the past few years -- the need for an economic stimulus on the brink of the Bush-Cheney depression -- Obama got ZERO House GOP votes and 3 Senate GOP votes (one of whom is now a Democrat), votes that in fact required Obama to water down the stimulus.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

On Nov. 3, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to begin debate and vote on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). At this writing it appears that the committee's Republican members plan to boycott the debate and votes, thus denying a quorum necessary for these deliberations. These members are concerned that there has been inadequate analysis of CEJAPA.

However, this overlooks the fact that CEJAPA is very similar to the House-passed global warming bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). The latter bill has received extensive evaluation and scrutiny from a number of government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and Energy Information Administration. On Oct. 27, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the Senate Environment Committee that the two bills were so similar that they will likely have the same impact on costs, energy use, and other variables. She said:

Earlier this year, EPA ran the major provisions of the House clean-energy legislation through several economic computer models. When it comes to the specifications that the models can detect, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is very similar to the House legislation. Nevertheless, EPA has examined the ways in which the Senate bill is different and determined which of the conclusions reached about the House-passed bill can confidently be said to apply to the Senate bill as well.

In other words, the updated EPA analysis of the CEJAPA that is based on its assessment of the ACES provides an accurate portrait of the Senate bill's projected impacts. The more in-depth analysis desired by the dissenters would not shed additional light on CEJAPA's estimated impacts. Opponents of the bill are using this as an excuse to block the CEJAPA that they oppose regardless.

Their real agenda is to block action on clean-energy jobs legislation. Such efforts would please big oil companies and other special interests who are spending millions of dollars to block this bill. For instance, the New York Times reports that "the oil and gas industry in the third quarter outspent all of the other sectors lobbying on climate ... Exxon Mobil Corp. led its sector with $7.2 million in lobbying work, more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector."

While the obstructionists attempt to block progress, they will also stop many provisions that would benefit Americans. The list below describes a number of important benefits that government and academic analyses determined about ACES that also apply to the CEJAPA. This list is part one, with more reasons to follow. They provide ample evidence for senators planning to block consideration of the CEJAPA to reconsider, and allow this critical legislation to move forward.

1. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will enhance national security

In 2007, the Military Advisory Board of CNA -- a distinguished panel of retired high-ranking military officers-determined that global warming posed a direct threat to the United States' security. Their conclusion was that "projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security ... Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world."

On Oct. 28, 2009, Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (R-Va.) testified before the Senate Environment Committee, urging "this committee to take action [on climate change]." He warned that "If left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. ... We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security."

Warner noted that the CEJAPA "has established a beachhead. Now is the time for Congress to move forward."

2. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will create jobs

The House-passed ACES would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to a new state-of-the-art economic model developed by the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and Yale University.

The study predicted that from 2010 to 2020, ACES would lead to:

These findings are consistent with "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts and sponsored by the Center for American Progress. This study projected that ACES, combined with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would produce a net of 1.7 million clean-energy jobs.

Since CEJAPA is very similar to ACES, it is a safe bet that it too would create a substantial number of jobs and spur additional economic growth.

3. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will increase American competitiveness

A book about the last eight years of our government could be called While America Slept. We have done little to invest in the development, commercialization, or production of the clean-energy technologies that a carbon-constrained world will want. Meanwhile, many of our foreign competitors -- Germany, Japan, China, Spain, and other nations-have invested heavily in them. The United States went from making nearly half of the world's solar photovoltaic cells to making 10 percent of them, while China is now the leader.

Venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt warn, "There is still time for us to lead this global race, although that window is closing. We need low-carbon policies to exploit America's strengths -- innovation and entrepreneurs."

CAP President and CEO John Podesta testified about competitiveness measures in the CEJAPA before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Oct. 29. He noted that the Clean Energy Jobs Act puts a price on carbon pollution, which would

... level the playing field between the prices of dirty and cleaner energy sources ... [and] combined with companion measures before the Senate, would create a clean-energy investment program that would cut greenhouse gas pollution, spur clean-energy technology innovation, create new jobs, and increase American energy independence.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that reducing global warming pollution would boost competitiveness and provide an economic stimulus.

"A commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short to medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity."

4. The EPA finds the Clean Energy Jobs Act is affordable

Because the CEJAPA is very similar to ACES, EPA's analysis determined that "the impacts of CEJAPA would be similar to those estimated for ACES." Most importantly, EPA found that "the average loss of consumption per household will be relatively, on the order of hundreds of dollars per year." In fact, EPA estimates the average annual household cost of ACES to range from $84 to $110 in 2020.

EPA concluded that differences in the bills produce "relatively small differences in estimated costs and may even cancel each other out."

5. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will save oil

The National Wildlife Federation, using data from the Energy Information Administration, estimates that ACES would reduce oil use by the equivalent of 590,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020, rising to 948,000 fewer barrels per day in 2028. From 2012 to 2030, the United States would use 4 billion fewer barrels of oil, and save $658 billion. This is a savings of $5,600 per household.

The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy estimates similar oil savings due to ACES. It predicts that Americans would consume 640,000 fewer barrels per day in 2020, and 1.4 million barrels per day less in 2030. In addition to reducing global warming pollution, lower oil use would enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It would also shrink the dollars sent to other countries to buy their oil -- often from unfriendly regimes. These funds could be used more productively at home. In 2008, the United States spent an estimated $1 billion per day buying foreign oil.

6. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will produce income for farmers

Both the CEJAPA and ACES provide an opportunity for farmers to increase their income by sequestering carbon pollution in their land via farming practices. EPA's analysis found that ACES would create up to nearly $19 billion annually in net benefit to farmers from offsets. This is an average of $9,500 per farm. The Senate version would allow 50 percent more domestic offsets, which creates an even bigger opportunity for farmers.

The offsets program enables polluters to pay farmers or others to capture or store carbon pollution instead of reducing their own emissions. Since such offsets can be cheaper, they can reduce pollution at a lower cost. The offsets must be measurable, additional, and verifiable. Farmers can create offsets by employing farming practices that store carbon in the Earth, such as no till plowing, erosion prevention, soil conservation, reduced tillage, planting perennial trees and shrubs, utilizing rotational grazing and methane capture with livestock, applying less fertilizer, and restoring watersheds.

According to Ohio State University's Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases notes that "increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity ... while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluated ACES's impact on farm income. In the short run, it would have less than one cent per dollar impact on net farm income. USDA notes that "Other studies...find that ACES leads to higher agricultural incomes, even without offsets."

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group also predicts a more profitable future for agriculture under a policy that reduces global warming pollution. "Analysis indicates the increase in farming income from offsets, biofuels, and commodity prices resulting from a cap-and-trade system more than offsets any potential increase in the price of fuel, fertilizer, or other inputs for the agricultural sector," the organization has reported.

Read Part 2 here.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Dear President Obama,

cc: Sen. Kerry, Rep. Markey

Our nation faces the gravest threat to our security and well being and the most profound moral challenge since the great struggle to end slavery. We were blessed, then, to be led by another tall, slim politician from Illinois. However, the terrible prospect of climate cataclysm, though just as grave, is more encompassing and final and calls for Presidential leadership of a higher order then even President Lincoln displayed.

Lincoln triumphed over partisan politics and a ghastly civil war, but he did so by hewing to a moderate course, never straying beyond the boundaries of the national civic debate. As a student of Lincoln, you know well that the 16th President long resisted efforts to change the character of the national conflict from a political matter of secession to the moral imperative of ending slavery. When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he was fully convinced that no compromise measure would be acceptable to proponents of slavery.

The immense, rushing threat of climate catastrophe allows no such middle course, because there is no time for evolution of the political debate. You must decide the essential moral and practical question now; geophysical reality does not permit the luxury of waiting to be "controlled by events." If we delay until climate impacts -- such as rising sea levels, drought and severe weather events -- begin to tear at the very fabric of the nation, then it is probable that the planet will have passed the climate point of no return. In such circumstances the fine distinction you have drawn between "the good" and "the perfect" is meaningless. It is more accurate to say that "half measures avail us nothing."

Maggie Zhou and Ken Ward ask: "What would Lincoln do?"It is now imperative that you accept the great responsibility of recasting the fundamental question facing humanity -- there is no one else in the world with the authority and power to do so. The question before us must be simplified and the scale, nature, and timing of a functional global response set before the nation and the world. The first, inarguable step in that direction is to endorse the goal of 350 ppm (or less, as most recent evidence suggests). We must acknowledge the challenge, no matter how high the hurdles.

By embracing this necessity, you bring policy and politics into line with climate realities. You also take a tremendous political risk, it is true, and open a Pandora's Box of challenges to the utterly inadequate mechanisms of the American Clean Energy Solutions Act. This is necessary if we are to even begin grappling with the true scale of risk and fundamental nature of the solutions we must embrace.

Eventually, President Lincoln came to the right decision, choosing Emancipation over gimmicks like repatriation of slaves to Africa. Given his strength of character and acuity of sight, it seems likely that he would have reached the same conclusion without the luxury of time, as you must now do. We urge that you consider the question, “what would Lincoln do?” and act accordingly.

Sincerely,

The Rev. Dr. Jim Antal
Conference Minister & President,
Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ

Ross Gelbspan
Author

Marla Marcum
Chair, Climate Change Task Force,
NE Conference of the United Methodist Church

Andrée Zaleska & Ken Ward
Cofounders, Jamaica Plain Green House
350.org hub
Climate SOS

Maggie Zhou, PhD
Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities
Climate SOS

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

I'm sure Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin didn't choose the headline, but whoever did, I think it's a real mistake to refer to the Kerry-Boxer bill as "a bit more ambitious" than its Waxman-Markey counterpart in the House. This became conventional wisdom almost immediately, but it seems to me both wrong and pernicious -- the more Kerry-Boxer is seen as a leftward move from the House bill, the more senators who want to be seen as moderate will want to be seen hacking it down.

There is one way in which Kerry's bill is unambiguously stronger: it retains EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. That's a big deal -- a red line, analogous to the public option in health care reform, for many progressive groups -- but it's basically orthogonal to the bill's substance. (It will not survive the process, I fear, though the public option look like it might surprise us, so who knows.)

The typically cited basis for claiming Kerry's bill is stronger is the fact that the 2020 emissions target went up to 20% from 17%. But:

So, the change in the 2020 target is far less significant than it appears. Offsetting that modest improvement is more than three times the subsidies for "clean coal," more handouts for nuclear and natural gas, and more handouts to Big Ag.

Most importantly, though the significant differences are not in the cap-and-trade portion of the bill but in the energy portion. The bill already passed by the Senate Energy Committee -- the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, or ACELA -- is considerably weaker than the analogous portions of the Waxman-Markey bill. The Renewable Electricity Standard is reduced from the already-weak 20% by 2020 to just 15%. It establishes a woefully flawed Clean Energy Deployment Administration. It would enable offshore drilling. And its efficiency provisions are weaker.

As the EPA says in its analysis (PDF), "EPA expects the impacts (e.g., changes in energy demand and prices) of energy efficiency provisions in S. 1733 to be approximately half those estimated in our analysis of H.R. 2454." Recall two things: one, mainstream economic analysis tends to dramatically understate the value of efficiency; losing half of the efficiency gains in Waxman-Markey is a bigger deal than EPA makes out.

And two, complementary measures -- mostly efficiency -- were expected to generate a huge amount of emission reductions in 2020, as the World Resources Institute illustrates [SEE UPDATE BELOW]:

Losing half those efficiency gains, while it may not show up in the official targets, substantially blunts the bill's impact.

---

So it's time to stop saying the Kerry-Boxer bill is more ambitious than Waxman-Markey. It gives more favors away to more interest groups -- so I suppose you could say it's more politically ambitious. But in terms of the measures meant to drive reliable, cost-effective action in the short-term, the Senate bill is a step backwards.

---

UPDATE: This post contains two serious errors, for which I have no excuse, unless you think writing at 2am with a head cold is an excuse.

First, I say above that methane emissions were moved out from under the cap, and are now eligible as offsets. That's half right. They weren't under the cap in Waxman-Markey, but they were subject to mandatory regulations. Under Kerry-Boxer, those regulations are gone, at least until 2020; reductions from methane will be voluntary and eligible as offsets. That still means fewer total emission reductions by 2020, though the difference is not in capped sectors, but in uncapped sectors.

Secondly: Brad is right -- I totally misrepresented WRI's chart. As Brad says, the complementary policies represented in WRI's graph are not efficiency provisions, but industrial and stationary source performance standards, along with international forestry provisions. As WRI says, "the vast majority of mandatory energy efficiency programs would further regulate capped sectors and thus not achieve additional reductions."

So: the weaker efficiency provisions in ACELA would increase the cost of achieving reductions in capped sectors, but would not increase the amount of emission reductions.

Anyway, apologies for the errors, and thanks to Brad for the catch.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

A group of prominent ecologists and climate scientists have an important article coming out in tomorrow's issue of Science, in which they call for "fixing a critical climate accounting error." The error is ignoring a significant source of global warming pollution related to using biomass for energy ("bioenergy").

I know that most people's eyes glaze over whenever "accounting" is mentioned and others tune out when discussion turns to "climate," so the number of people interested in "climate accounting" may be vanishingly small. But this article is important and not as obscure as it sounds.  Getting the accounting wrong means that more CO2 is going into the air than we are acknowledging; and that worsens global warming.  CO2 has the same effect whether we count it or not, but we can't reduce emissions that we don't admit are happening. Global warming is too serious of a problem for us to use incomplete balance sheets.

The Science article points out that the climate legislation pending in Congress hasn't yet accounted properly for emissions from bioenergy.  We need to get this right so that climate legislation promotes bioenergy that helps us fight global warming rather than costs us forests.

This is where the principles of ecology come in. Barry Commoner annunciated five laws of ecology during the 1970s. The first two are:

The first law means that to understand the implications of using biomass for energy we can't just look at the impact on the land where the biomass came from, we also have to consider the ripple effects, whether on neighboring farms or forests half way across the world that are connected through global commodities markets. Remember, everything is connected to everything else.

A corollary of the second law is that everything has to come from somewhere. In the case of biomass, the carbon it contains comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. That's why there is an environmental opportunity in replacing fossil fuels with biofuels. But whether there are in fact net environmental benefits or costs depends on what would have happened to that carbon if it wasn't used for energy. Remember, everything has to come from somewhere.

The key sentence in the Science article is:

Bioenergy therefore reduces greenhouse emissions only if the growth and harvesting of the biomass for energy captures carbon above and beyond what would be sequestered anyway, thereby offsetting emissions from energy use.

In other words, the clean energy merits of biomass depend on the specifics of how it is harvested and how the land it comes from is managed.

The climate bills currently under consideration in Congress, however, fail to distinguish between the carbon footprint of burning biomass from a mature forest and burning crop waste. Instead, all "renewable biomass" is assumed to be carbon neutral and any biomass that isn't considered renewable is assumed to have no environmental benefits. As a result, there is a huge, if obscure, fight going on over exactly how "renewable biomass" should be defined in the legislation. The need for a more nuanced approach was flagged by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson, and needs to be addressed as clean energy and climate legislation moves through the Senate.

We have to get biofuels right to get the pollution reductions the clean energy bill is designed to achieve. Otherwise there will be a perverse incentive to clear forests for bioenergy production even if the net emissions are actually higher than from continuing to burn fossil fuels. This incentive will get larger over time as the cost of emitting fossil fuel CO2 rises as long as net emissions from bioenergy CO2 remain free.

The solution is to stop assuming that burning biomass is always carbon neutral and fix this climate accounting error by recognizing that everything is connected to everything else.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Sunday's New York Times op-ed by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) begins:

CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. ... However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.

It's hard to overstate the significance of this joint declaration. It ensures that the Senate bill will be bipartisan. It demonstrates that there is a pathway to 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. And it establishes comprehensive energy and climate legislation as the next item on the Senate agenda after health care reform, meaning there is a very real shot at Senate passage prior to Copenhagen.

Kerry and Graham make a powerful pair, particularly when it comes to the national security case for action:

Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.

The op-ed does goes beyond a call to action and lays out key elements of the package deal they envision, many of which are already contained in the legislation Kerry introduced with Senator Boxer at the end of September. Kerry and Graham call for:

Elements of this package make me uncomfortable, and the details will certainly matter, but most of this makes sense and there is no time left for wishful thinking about a perfect bill that will never come. Let's consider each element in turn, but keep in mind that it's the overall package that matters:

Aggressive reduction in emissions: The 2020 target in Kerry-Boxer (20 percent below 2005 levels) is hardly aggressive considering that emissions in 2009 will be about 9 percent below 2005 levels according to the latest Department of Energy short term forecast. But the 2030 target is more serious and the 2050 target -- 80 percent below 1990 levels -- is as aggressive as any adopted by a major country to date, and consistent (barely) with what the science demands.

Nuclear power: It's a fact that nuclear power currently generates about 20 percent of our electricity, although claims that a large expansion of nuclear power is the only way to meet our emission reduction goals are simply not supported by analysis. R&D on solutions to the nuclear waste problem makes sense, but it's hard to see how nuclear plant permitting could be any more "streamlined" in a way that "maintains vigorous safeguards." The reality is that limiting global warming pollution will make nuclear power more competitive against fossil fuels. If after more than 50 years of lavish government support that is still not enough to get private investors to build nuclear power plants, perhaps its time to actually let the market work.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS): Half of our electricity is currently generated by coal-fired power plants. CCS will not make coal "clean," but support for commercializing CCS technology is politically essential and has policy merit. Both the House bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill include generous provisions. Even if all the coal plants in the United States shut down tomorrow (which is not going to happen) what about the hundreds of plants built in China and India over the last few years? In addition, carbon dioxide captured from power plants and industrial facilities can increase domestic oil production without drilling in new areas, as discussed next.

Oil and gas production: Although Kerry and Graham are talking about seeking a compromise on additional oil and gas exploration, by far the biggest opportunity is to get more oil out of fields that have already been explored and developed. Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recover (CO2-EOR) could produce over 50 billion barrels of additional oil from existing fields, cutting our oil imports in half. This resource dwarfs the amount of oil likely to be found in disputed frontier areas, both on and offshore.

Competitiveness: Kerry and Graham call for considering border taxes on goods imported from countries that do not adopt environmental standards. Outsourcing jobs and pollution is in no ones interest. Authority to establish border taxes on emissions-intensive goods makes sense (and would be consistent with WTO rules) if other countries have a reasonable opportunity to adopt appropriate standards and any border taxes are set in a non-discriminatory way. The provision in the House-passed bill is a good place to start.

Allowance price floor and ceiling: Cost management is essential for any legislation that has a chance of being enacted, and establishing an effective allowance price floor and ceiling can be part of a comprehensive cost containment system. The Kerry-Boxer bill has an improved "green collar" mechanism to prevent excessive carbon price volatility while maintaining the environmental integrity of the emissions cap over time.

Legislating is often compared to sausage making. It has also been described as the art of the possible. Kerry and Graham just made enacting comprehensive energy and climate protection legislation far more possible. Not all the details will be pretty, but if we can avoid mixing in any poison pills we have an opportunity to enact legislation that will produce more jobs, less pollution, and greater security. We can't afford to fail.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Last week, I struck a hopeful note after GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed interest in a climate bill compromise that included a carbon cap in exchange for support for some nuclear power and coastal drilling. But my expectations it would really happen remained low.

Today, Graham made a deal all but inevitable.

Final compromise language is far from complete. But for the conservative South Carolinian to explicitly back "aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change" (!) in a joint op-ed with Massachusetts liberal Sen. John Kerry (!!) published in pages of New York Times (!!!), Graham has already done all he could to infuriate the conservative movement and many voters in his conservative state.

In other words, Graham has already assumed the political risks for doing a deal. And there's no point in taking those risks unless you actually do the deal. He has crossed the climate Rubicon.

(Though perhaps he can get away without anyone finding out. Amazingly, Sen. Graham appeared on NBC's Meet The Press today and failed to get a single question on the landmark op-ed. The long-standing Sunday show aversion to environmental issues remains stupefying.)

Climate Progress' Joe Romm predicts that Sen. Graham's support would bring along as many as six other Republican senators. While the Democratic caucus remains split along geographical lines, that level of Republican support would make it extremely likely that 60 senators would at least vote to cut off any filibuster attempts.

(Note that the Senate earlier rejected any possibility of passing climate legislation through Senate budget rules that preclude filibusters. It is truly sixty or Bust.)

Also striking, Sens. Graham and Kerry promote a "border tax" to pressure other exporting nations "that do not accept environmental standards" because "we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas."

The House climate bill has that provision, but President Obama spoke out against the carbon tariff upon passage, I believe under the presumption the "free"-trade loving Senate would never go for it. Sen. Sherrod Brown earlier stated the opposite was true: a carbon tariff is politically necessary: "I don't think there's any way we get to even 50 votes if we don't deal with manufacturing in the climate change bill ... We need some sort of border equalization: temporary, not permanent..."

The Massachusetts and South Carolina senators have clearly reached the same conclusion.

Get Energy Smart Now understandably expresses caution that the devil is always in the details. But Romm enthuses: "I expect the final bill will have no deal-breakers for progressives." I would think the latter to be true. I said last week, as unpleasant as compromises on nuclear power and coastal drilling may be, they are unlikely to trump the power of a carbon cap.

Romm observes if Senate deal is forged before December's U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen, even if the Senate can't quickly move to a formal vote, the U.S. will have much stronger bargaining leverage to seal an international agreement. With Kerry and Graham in agreement on the basic outlines, reaching such a deal by mid-December looks very plausible.

What was that again, oh wise Washington Establishment purveyors of conventional wisdom, about being unable to handle health care and global warming at the same time?

Originally posted at OurFuture.org.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

In July, I speculated that Sen. Lamar Alexander might lead some Republicans to back a climate protection bill if Democratic leaders made some concessions regarding nuclear power. The prospect was tantalizing, as I noted then: "The Democratic caucus is not solid enough on climate issues to presume GOP votes are unneeded. Anyone giving a positive signal is at least worth feeling out."

But Alexander quickly buried that possibility, setting wildly impossible goals for nuclear and ramping up intellectually incoherent attacks on the House climate bill.

Now, the possibility of Republican support for "cap and trade" legislation is getting renewed attention. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham explicitly raised the possibility of a deal, involving more nuclear power and offshore drilling, and Democratic leaders are hearing him out. ClimateWire reports:

Graham made similar comments to the Houston Chronicle, which suggested what a deal may look like:

I am no shill for nuclear power. We still don't have a nuclear waste solution (nor does nuclear-loving right-wing favorite France), and new plants are extremely costly, not exactly small problems.

But I am also not blind to the fact that we already have nuclear power and it's not going away any time soon. So sinking a climate bill over a nuclear compromise will do nothing to change our current reliance on nukes, while also doing nothing to cut carbon emissions.

The Republican whining about nuclear power has always been strange, because the House climate bill already supports nuclear power. A House aide who worked on the bill said, "twice as many new nuclear plants would be built by 2025 under [the House bill] than without the legislation." All we are debating about is "how much" more nuclear, not "if any."

Coastal drilling, it's a similar story. Is it a waste of time to do more? Of course. There just ain't that much oil.

But we already do some coastal drilling. The question is if we can find a way to permit a little more (note that it would take years before any actual hole got drilled anyway, so it may not be that big a concession) without creating significant environmental problems in exchange for a comprehensive plan to sufficiently cap carbon once for all.

Do I have great confidence that a few conservative Republicans are willing to face down the Teabagger fringe and strike a hard bargain? No. But any feeler is worth exploring.

Do I relish the nature of these potential deals? No. But the climate crisis threat is imminent. And it will be impossible to get the Senate to pass a real carbon cap, as it was in the House, without some unpleasant compromises.

The carbon cap is the ultimate big fish, so we should keep our eye on the ball.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

We've taken a good long look at CEJAPA, the 801-page Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act that was introduced recently by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Now, it's time to see how the Senate bill compares with ACES. the American Clean Energy and Security Act co-sponsored by House members Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). 

Be forewarned that even CEJAPA's biggest supporters say that much about the Senate bill will change. The first markup on Boxer’s Environment and Public Works committee is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 15. Until then, here's how the two climate bills stack up against each other, and against some of the other climate and energy bills percolating in the Senate.

Emission cuts

•    Waxman-Markey: ACES would put a cap on greenhouse gases and require industries that emit high amounts of greenhouse gases to reduce their output. Using the 2005 emission levels as a baseline, ACES would cut emissions by 3 percent in 2012, 17 percent in 2020, 42 percent in 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.

•    Boxer-Kerry: CEJAPA would start by requiring a similar 3 percent cut in emissions by 2012, but it would require a sharper cut of 20 percent by 2020. Otherwise, the CEJAPA emission cuts are the same as those written up in ACES.

Emission permits
•    Waxman-Markey: ACES would require regulated industries to acquire permits (also called carbon credits or pollution allowances) for their emissions. At first, a large percentage of permits would be given out to affected industries and to other groups with a stake in the game. But eventually a fairly lively carbon-trading market is supposed to develop. This new carbon market would allow companies to purchase extra credits or bank and borrow credits. A company would also be allowed to sell their excess credits if they’re able to limit their emissions more than they’re required to. There would be a minimum price of $10 per unit for each carbon credit, starting in 2012. Government regulators would establish a maximum price of no more than 60 percent above a rolling average. If the concept sounds complicated and not terribly certain, many inside the industries that would be regulated tend to agree.

•    Boxer-Kerry: CEJAPA would try to create a similar system with the use of tradable credits. As with ACES the market for carbon credit trading would be fairly open -- to a point. A key difference between the two proposals is the Senate bill’s attempt to manage any carbon market volatility that could hurt emitters struggling to control costs. While the Waxman-Markey version doesn’t offer any real limits on the maximum cost for a credit, CEJAPA would set a ceiling price (what Boxer calls a “soft collar”) of $28, adjusted for inflation. Once that market price is hit, federal regulators would have reserves of permits they could release into the market to try and control the cost.

Who gets the permits and money
•    Waxman-Markey: Some permits will be given away to various affected industries and others to groups that can help manage the cost of these changes for consumers. ACES has a fairly detailed description of how the give-aways will be handed out. For example, 15 percent will go to energy-intensive industries and 30 percent to local electricity distribution companies to help them keep the cost to consumers low. Some industries, like the auto industry, would get a share of the credits to develop a specific clean technology. Other groups would get credits to help fund transmission and efficiency projects.
In the first years of the cap-and-trade program, the federal government would sell 15 percent of the permits, and ACES has a fairly well fleshed out explanation of who will benefit from the proceeds of those sales. A big chunk of the revenue would go to help soften the blow of increased energy costs to low and moderate income households. Smaller percentages would be distributed to combat international deforestation, research advanced-clean energy, and help our country and others adapt and transition to a less carbon-dependent world.

•    Boxer-Kerry: How CEJAPA would divvy up the giveaways and the proceeds from the sale of the remaining permits is still unknown -- it’s an area of the legislation with a lot of placeholders. In coming weeks the blanks will start to be filled in, but the hope is that by leaving the numbers blank for now, it gives lawmakers the flexibility to get industry backing by negotiating with major stakeholders. That said, one of the few firm numbers that is already written into CEJAPA is a provision to spend 25 percent of the revenues on federal deficit reduction -- a dramatic increase from the roughly 8 percent ear-marked in ACES. Boxer began to fill in the details in an interview that aired on Sunday, Oct. 4, where she announced that up to 70 percent of the giveaways will go to making it easier for consumers to pay.

Offsets
•    Waxman-Markey:  One way carbon emitters can deal with tough carbon caps is to buy into offsets. Basically, if you emit three tons of carbon too many, exceeding the limit, you’d be able to compensate by planting enough trees to absorb those three tons (or at least some of it.) Waxman-Markey had fairly well outlined explanations for the tradeoffs -- listing certain types of offsetting activities (at home and abroad) and naming the EPA as the adjudicator of what qualifies as a good offset and whether it’s being used.
•    Boxer-Kerry: Also includes an opportunity for carbon emitters to invest in offsets to help meet caps, but offers much less precise instructions as to what qualifies as an offset. What it does offer, in more precise terms, are the tools to scrutinize what will and won’t eventually qualify as an offset.

Renewable electricity standard
•    Waxman-Markey: ACES creates a renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require that an increasing percentage of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources -- as much as 20 percent by the year 2020. One major caveat was that as much as 5 percent could actually be accounted for by improvements in energy efficiencies.

•    Boxer-Kerry: CEJAPA offers no federal renewable energy standard. There is, however, a provision to empower the EPA to give grants and other assistance in an effort to help various states meet their own renewable energy standard. The legislation also includes a separate grant program for bio-fuels and gives the EPA the power to set a national energy efficiency building code standard and assistance in retro-fitting older buildings to meet newer efficiency code standards. It is important to note that in most cases where CEJAPA omits key energy areas, the missing pieces can be found in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). This bill was written by the Senate’s Energy Committee in June, as the “energy” portion to CEJAPA’s “climate.” The ACELA draft proposes a 15 percent renewable energy standard, and allows 4 percent of that to come from energy efficiency savings.

Getting off carbon

•    Waxman-Markey: ACES is a true climate and energy bill, so it does include ample money for investment in renewable energy -- as much as $190 billion by 2025. This counts investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, electric vehicles, and a number of technologies that do not make environmentalists happy, but do make coal state Dems smile, like, $60 billion in so-called “clean coal” research money.

•    Boxer-Kerry: At this point, CEJAPA is just the “climate” side of things, so it is thin on investments in new technology. That doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Its mate ACELA, the “energy” half of the equation, would create a clean energy investment fund, specifically for investing in new clean energies. That said, the provisions already penciled into CEJAPA that do deal with technology don’t particularly favor either clean/renewable energy, or coal -- they offer some helping hands to three other energy sources -- nuclear, natural gas, and biofuels -- that boosters all felt were left out of ACES. Natural gas in particular gets a boost from CEJAPA, which would establish an incentive to help convince big coal burners to switch to natural gas, which emits about half the CO2 of coal. It’s significant that there is a nuclear title at all in CEJAPA. ACES didn't bother with nuclear even though many conservatives like to think of nuclear as the ultimate clean energy. Obviously, this is a bone of contention, but it’s one that CEJAPA apparently is willing to deal with.

Cleaner rides

•    Waxman-Markey: Even before the Cash for Clunkers program struck such a chord this summer, the House passed a version of ACES that would provide one million vouchers to help consumers trade in older, less fuel efficient vehicles. The bill also had provisions to help support electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids -- and the improvements to our transmission grid needed to support an expanded use of electric cars.

•    Boxer-Kerry: The Boxer-Kerry draft includes provisions to push states and municipalities into looking at how to plan for mass-transit and more carbon-friendly transit -- think building trails and sidewalks to encourage bikers and pedestrians, and even plans for telecommuting. So does ACES, but with less emphatic language. CEJAPA requires using the money from credit auctions to support green transit planning, while ACES just allows it. CEJAPA also takes an interest in cleaning up taxis, a major source of carbon in metro areas that some more pro-active cities are already trying to tackle. CEJAPA wants stricter emissions standards for cabs than for other cars.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

by Rinku Sen & Billy Parish

Last week, the Labor Department reported that youth unemployment stands at 18.2%, nearly twice the national average of 9.8%. The percentage of young people without a job is a staggering 53.4 percent, the highest figure since World War II. Looking deeper, the statistics for youth of color are terrible and telling. 

According to the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.7% of black youth between 16-19 are unemployed, almost double the amount of whites teenagers (23%). For Latinos the same age, the rate is nearly 30%. Get a little older and the gap grows wider. Unemployment for black Americans aged 20-24 is 27.1%, over twice that faced by white youth (13.1%) in the same age range.

The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.

Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we’re prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.

There’s a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers’ organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That’s not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.   

While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. “White flight” from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.

Luckily, a growing number of people know better than to separate environmental and economic recovery from race. Local groups have started green jobs programs for young people that are inclusive and future-oriented. In Oakland, California, for example, the brand new Green Media Youth Center boasts a green job training program that can help create pathways out of poverty for young people in the city. Last Friday at the Center, Milani Pelley recorded her latest song in a brand new studio. Jhamel Robinson showed off the permaculture garden behind the building. And the list goes on.

But great programs here and there aren’t enough. We need to bring those programs to scale, and create both training and the actual jobs through federal, state and local policy. We need to spend real money funding job creation, and then closely monitor implementation to make sure new programs generate local hiring, affirmative action, great wages and benefits and long term career paths, among other elements that will make them work.  

This year, a national alliance of organized labor and civil rights, social justice and environmental groups has worked to create a vibrant clean energy economy that can not only improve the environment and economy, but also close the racial gap. In the House version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), this alliance secured the eleventh-hour addition of a billion dollars for green jobs training, as well as equity provisions for access to the jobs created. The Senate version released last week maintains those provisions.

These policies are a good start, but if they’re to survive and lead us to the additional billions and effective implementation that we need to get control of unemployment, we have to be prepared to fight on the race front, as well as the green. All signs indicate that opponents will bait American racism with brutal inventiveness. If the right’s attack on Van Jones isn’t enough of a warning, then we should take our lessons from the health care debate. We can expect conservative pundits to call equity guidelines reverse racism, or to put up immigrants rather than corporate pollution as the true cause of environmental collapse.

To counter that rhetoric, we need to be able to articulate more than a “lift all boats” approach – which improves things but leaves the racial and poverty gaps in place. We need to move support for a “fix all boats” approach that ensures full recovery for all. It’s our responsibility to change the rules and structures that threaten to exclude people of color from taking part in the new, green economy.

Young people are going to have to take the lead in this because they’ve got the most at stake. The decisions we make as a country now will affect them far longer than anyone else. The powers that be like to call these Millennials the first "post racial generation." They claim that young people take racial equality so much for granted that fighting racism is low on their list of priorities. The polluters of the gray economy will take that idea straight to the bank, unless young people themselves make it clear that they understand racism shows up in all our issues, including the environment.

We should amplify and grow efforts to build an inclusive green economy. In doing so, we must always ask two key questions about new policies and programs: is it green, and is it fair

Rinku Sen is the Executive Director of the Applied Research Center, which promotes racial justice through media, research, and activism.  Billy Parish is the founder of the Energy Action Coalition, a national youth clean energy coalition.

This entry is cross-posted at The Huffington Post.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

The new Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act gives progressives a second chance to influence climate legislation, if we learn the right lessons from both the legislative process for the House climate bill and the ongoing health care debate.

Many progressives have varying degrees of frustration with both processes, but the fact is the progressive grassroots has had more impact in the health care debate than the climate debate.

With health care, progressives picked their target and picked it early: the public option. There are a myriad of elements to health care reform, but focusing on one fundamental, easy to understand component channeled grassroots energy.

The push for the public option -- an idea that wasn't even in existence two years ago -- began before any bill was even drafted. Most progressive organizations, led by the Health Care for America Now coalition, prioritized the public option and launched grassroots actions that put pressure on lawmakers. Progressive media outlets put their spotlight on the early legislative maneuvering around public option, letting progressive citizens know that their efforts were needed and who needed persuading.

Now, four bills that have cleared House or Senate committees include a public option. The Senate Finance Committee may have rejected it. The final outcome remains uncertain. But it is indisputable that early, focused activism allowed progressive voices to be heard when it mattered, making a significant impact.

The House climate bill process was another story. Environmental groups were split on policy objectives. There was no single policy target to focus grassroots energy. Progressive media outlets, as well as traditional media, ignored the early legislative maneuvering. Progressive citizens simply had no idea that climate deals were being worked out, and so, we missed our chance to influence the negotiations.

Rep. Henry Waxman, climate bill point person with unquestionable progressive credentials, was left with no grassroots wind at his back while working with the significant number of Democrats from coal, oil and agriculture producing districts. He did the best he could to compromise without undermining the integrity of the carbon cap. I argued the compromise passes the threshold of acceptability, but many progressives were surprised and frustrated upon learning of the compromises to the fossil fuel lobby.

Regardless of your support for the House bill, it is indisputable it would have been a better bill if the progressive grassroots were engaged earlier and focused on a clear target.

Now, the process starts anew in the Senate with the Kerry-Boxer bill.

Fortunately, Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry did the right thing to spark grassroots energy. They introduced a stronger bill than the House version, in defiance of the conventional wisdom than any Senate bill would have to weaker than the House.

Despite the nonsensical whining and ingratitude from coal-state Dem senators, who pretended that Rep. Waxman didn't spend months crafting difficult compromises with fossil fuel interests specifically to make them happy, Sens. Boxer and Kerry embraced a more aggressive short-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions -- 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, versus 17 percent in the House bill -- and restored EPA authority to regulate emissions.

So we are not just playing defense in the Senate. We can get back on offense. And offense is more enticing for the grassroots.

But to play effective offense, you need to know what the goal is.

The environmental community remains split -- roughly between those who believe we immediately need a drastically more aggressive bill to get the world under 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and those who believe a bill that would keep us from reaching 450 at least gets us started and establishes a framework for even bolder action later.

But those organizations more inclined to support the basic framework of pending legislation appear to be coordinating better among themselves, having forged a new Clean Energy Works coalition.

However, the question remains if they plan to pick a single policy goal to channel grassroots energy towards. The 20% short-term target for cutting emissions? EPA authority to regulate emissions? Maybe going after the coal subsidies or potential loopholes in the carbon offset provisions.

Good arguments could be made for any of those, and it's not for one blog post to arbitrarily decree what the best target would be.

But I do contend the lesson from the past year is that single target is needed, if we are best channel grassroots energy.

And without grassroots energy, it will be extremely hard to pressure the 18 Democratic senators from coal country that can deny us even a simple majority. Ask Henry Waxman.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

In some hopeful news for sustainable energy advocates, the latest production numbers from the federal government are out -- and they show that the growth rate of renewable sources continues to outpace nuclear and fossil fuels.

The data come as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) are expected to introduce legislation today designed to curb man-made climate change, with hearings on their bill  -- a counterpart to the one that narrowly passed the House in June -- expected to begin early next month.

While the politics of the climate bill are likely to be even more contentious than health reform, some note with optimism that a shift toward renewables is already underway.

"As Congress debates energy funding priorities and climate legislation, it would do well to take note of the clear trends in the nation's changing energy mix," says Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign, a Maryland-based nonprofit research organization that promotes sustainable energy technologies. "Renewable energy has become a major player -- growing rapidly and nipping at the heels of nuclear power -- while fossil fuel use continues to drop."

According to the latest issue of the Monthly Energy Review published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources -- biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind -- provided 11.37% of domestic U.S. energy production in June 2009, the most recent month for which data is available. That represents a gain since the first half of 2007, when renewable sources accounted for 9.89% of domestic energy production, and from the same period last year, when they represented 10.2% of production.

At the same time, EIA's latest Electric Power Monthly reports that renewable energy sources provided 11.18% of net U.S. electrical generation for the first six months of 2009 -- a significant gain over renewables' 9.9% share for the first half of 2008.

Renewable energy sources grew by 4.62% during the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. Most of that growth came from wind and hydropower, which expanded by 24.54% and 7.14% respectively in the first half of 2009 compared to the first half of 2008.

In comparison, nuclear power increased by only 1.38%, while domestic fossil fuel production actually dropped by 0.7%. Meanwhile, overall consumption of fossil fuels -- including imports -- declined 7.67%.

The numbers for renewable energy are likely to grow even more in the coming months as planned projects get underway.

Those include a new North Carolina effort to develop offshore wind power. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy and UNC-Chapel Hill are finalizing a contract that would have the company build one to three wind towers in Pamlico Sound while UNC researchers would study environmental impacts, maintenance and other related issues.

At the same time, though, Duke Energy is still investing heavily in new generation from polluting sources, constructing a new $2.4 billion coal-fired power plant at its Cliffside facility in western North Carolina. The Cliffside plant is expected to release to the air annually 6 million tons of carbon dioxide as well as large quantities of chemicals toxic to human health.

Meanwhile, the rate hike the company requested to help pay for the plant has met opposition at public hearings across the state this month, with one local newspaper describing the scene at this week's public hearing in Macon County, N.C. as "a seeming never-ending procession of citizens stating their considered opposition" to the increase, which is also opposed by a grassroots coalition of 25 environmental and public-health advocacy groups.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What to make of the new climate poll

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to introduce their climate bill tomorrow. Here are a few brief notes on what to watch for.

Just as a reminder, for the non-wonks, here's how the process works: 1) House passes bill, 2) Senate passes bill, 3) House and Senate bills reconciled via conference committee, 4) House and Senate both vote on resulting bill, and, finally, 5) president signs bill. Yes, it's a torturous, somewhat ridiculous process, with dozens of points at which it can go off the rails.

The thing to remember is that #2 -- which begins tomorrow -- is a very different process than #1. In the House, just one committee was involved: Energy & Commerce. That committee has a fairly diverse membership, so Sens. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) had to contend with a broad array of interests, but ultimately Waxman's hand was on the tiller through the whole journey. The committee produced a bill and it went to the floor for a vote.

It's not so simple in the Senate. (Is anything simple in the Senate?) There, up to five committees may hold hearings and mark up legislation, which will ultimately have to be incorporated into one comprehensive bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid. Potentially weighing in: Environment & Public Works, Energy & Natural Resources, Finance, Agriculture, and Foreign Relations.

It's possible Foreign Relations (which Kerry chairs) will bow out. Ag, now chaired by the climate-hostile Blanche Lincoln (D-Agribiz), will likely want to extract its chunk of flesh on carbon market regulation and agricultural offsets. Finance, chaired by the dread Max Baucus (D-Mont.), will want to have a hand in allowance allocation, though Boxer (or Reid) may yet convince him to back off. Energy, under Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), has already passed its bit, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, a comparatively weak energy title relative to what's in the House bill.

Boxer's committee, EPW, is one of the Senate's most progressive, and what Boxer and Kerry will introduce tomorrow is widely expected to mark the left edge of the debate -- everything that follows will push the bill in a weaker direction. They've said that they'll model their bill on the House-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES), which is somewhat unfortunate since ACES already represents the result of numerous compromises in the House. But such is the U.S. Senate.

Boxer and Kerry have signaled that they'll make a few improvements on ACES. For one thing, they're expected to bump the 2020 target from 17% (below 2005 levels) to 20%. They're also expected to restore the EPA's New Source Review authority over CO2, which could be quite contentious.

A few things worth keeping an eye on:

There's likely more I'm forgetting, but that's a start.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Paul Krugman concludes in "It's easy being green" (NY Times Opinion, 9/24/2009) that "the claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax." Indeed, but the notion that the Waxman-Markey legislation is about "saving the planet" (Krugman's words) is equally inscrutable. Even Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog, one of the most ardently supportive voices in favor of Waxman-Markey, asserted in May that if the law is enacted there would only be a "10% to 20% chance of averting catastrophe." Are those the best odds that Waxman-Markey's cheap emission reductions can buy? 

Waxman-Markey's faults notwithstanding, it could be a positive step forward if it does not impede complementary efforts to achieve further emission reductions and to set precedents for more effective federal action. And yet the House bill would perversely impede and undermine such efforts. How so? 

Suppose, for example, that you wanted to install photovoltaic panels on your home to reduce your carbon footprint. By reducing your dependence on coal-powered electricity, less coal would be burned, and your personal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions would be diminished -- you would hope. But with cap-and-trade it doesn't work that way. 

Under Waxman-Markey's emission trading system, your local electricity distribution company would be required to hold and surrender allowances for its greenhouse gas emissions, including the emissions resulting from your electricity consumption. But even if you reduce or eliminate your consumption of grid-supplied electricity, the allowances that would have been used to cover your emissions will still be allocated, and will be available to allow more emissions elsewhere. Those additional emissions would not have been allowed without your action, and will nullify any environmental benefit of your action. Unless there is some mechanism for capturing and retiring the surplus allowances resulting from your action, you will have accomplished nothing more than to marginally reduce industry's compliance costs by increasing the supply of surplus allowances. 

Complementary greenhouse gas reduction actions by companies and local governments would similarly be subverted by emission trading. The Waxman-Markey law makes a feeble attempt to address this issue in a singular provision allowing states to "require surrender ... of emission allowances" from regulated entities (HR2454, p. 1018), but this authority is only granted in the context of states' own cap-and-trade programs and is apparently intended to be exercised only for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with such programs. States could use this authority to ensure that their cap-and-trade regulations achieve emission reductions that are additional to what the federal program alone would achieve. However, states are barred from implementing such programs between 2012 and 2017, and the provision does not address the additionality problem in the context of other types of programs such a vehicle emission regulations and photovoltaic financing programs. 

A practical resolution to this problem would be to authorize the U.S. EPA to set aside and retire (or allow states to retire) the surplus allowances resulting from states' complementary greenhouse gas reduction programs. There is a growing awareness of this issue among some state governments and public interest groups (even though the press and the public are largely oblivious to the problem), and the Senate will soon have an opportunity to formulate a legislative remedy. 

Yes, "it's easy being green," but saving the planet is harder. Congress might not be able to pass climate legislation if it isn't as cheap and easy as Krugman says it will be, but the law should not deter and diminish the efforts of those who are able and willing to do more and to pay more to help avert climate catastrophe. The fundamental question before the Senate is this: Should individuals, corporations, municipalities, and states have the ability and the right, under federal cap-and-trade legislation, to take action to further reduce their carbon footprint without their action resulting in, and being nullified by, increased emissions elsewhere?

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

Cross-posted from Change.org.

Sens. Boxer and Kerry at a climate rally in June.Photo: David Pierpont, NWF via FlickrLast night at Pittsburgh's Andy Warhol Museum, Teresa Heinz read a message from her husband, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), that set the gala crowd to cheering:  He and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce a climate bill in the Senate next Wednesday.

The bill will be backed by a strong and broad coalition, according to Kerry's message, which Heinz delivered at a pre-G20 party sponsored by the U.S. Climate Action Network, and "will take a more comprehensive approach to dwindling oil reserves than any prior legislation."

The legislation will be a "thoughtful, innovative, far-reaching solution" in four areas: the nation's energy foundation; U.S. economic competitiveness; the health of the environment; and national security.

In between sets by the cream of New Orleans jazz musicians, an upbeat Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) encouraged the crowd to stay optimistic about the prospects for a good international climate treaty to come out of December's negotiations in Copenhagen.  "We need to get the Senate to act," said Doyle, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which produced the energy and climate bill tha the House passed in June.

"Let's give President Obama some arrows in his quiver to take to Copenhagen," Doyle said, suggesting that the Pittsburgh crowd remember to call Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the coming weeks and ask him to support the upcoming climate bill.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

This post was co-authored by Center for American Progress Vice President for Energy Policy Kate Gordon, Senior Fellow Bracken Hendricks, and Policy Analyst Benjamin Goldstein. It was cross-posted from Wonk Room.

The United States is having the wrong public debate about global warming. We are asking important questions about pollution caps and timetables, carbon markets and allocations, but we have lost sight of our principal objective: building a robust and prosperous clean energy economy. This is a fundamentally affirmative agenda, rather than a restrictive one. Moving beyond pollution from fossil fuels will involve exciting work, new opportunities, new products and innovation, and stronger communities. Our current national discussion about constraints, limits, and the costs of transition misses the real excitement in this proposition. It is as if, on the cusp of an Internet and telecommunications revolution, debate centered only on the cost of fiber optic cable. We are missing the big picture here.

Let’s be clear: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous global warming is an environmental challenge, but it is also an economic, national security, societal, and moral imperative. The “cap and trade” provisions, which will set limits on pollution and create a market for emissions reductions that will ultimately drive down the cost of renewable energy and fuel, represent a very important first step and a major component in the mix of policies that will help build the coming low-carbon economy. But limiting emissions and establishing a price on pollution is not the goal in itself, and we will fall short if that is all we set out to do. Rather, cap and trade is one key step to reach the broader goal of catalyzing the transformation to an efficient and sustainable low-carbon economy. With unemployment at 9.5 percent, and oil and energy price volatility driving businesses into the ground, we cannot afford to wait any longer. It is time for a legislative debate over a comprehensive clean-energy investment plan. We need far more than cap and trade alone.

Importantly, many elements of this positive clean-energy investment framework are already codified within existing legislation such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by House of Representatives earlier this year. But with all the attention given to limiting carbon, too little attention has been placed on what will replace it. These critical pieces of America’s clean-energy strategy should be elevated in the policy agenda and political debate as we move forward into the Senate, and used to help move legislation forward that advances a proactive investment and economic revitalization strategy for the nation.

Read the Center for American Progress report, The Clean-Energy Investment Agenda.

Related Links:

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Tom Friedman on “What They Really Believe”

Winning the clean energy race: a new strategy for American leadership

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) won his 2008 race against 40-year Republican incumbent Gordon Smith in a squeaker, with a margin of just 3%. Despite the narrow win, Merkley has come out swinging on climate and energy issues, securing an appointment to the Environment & Public Works Committee, sponsoring or co-sponsoring a series of clean energy bills and amendments, and generally staking out -- with compatriot Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) -- the left edge of the climate bill debate. (Grist interviewed Merkley last July.)

Sen. Merkley was kind enough to answer a couple of questions from Grist about the upcoming Senate battle over the climate bill:

Here's the transcript:

Introduction: Greetings! I want to take just a few minutes to answer some questions from David Roberts from Grist. Now, David has some questions about our upcoming climate legislation.

Q: The first is: What are the most important ways to strengthen the climate bill that came out of the House?

A: Well, the first key thing is to strengthen the pollution-reduction target. We need to have at least a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Second is, we really need to focus on reducing the most polluting technologies, such as the current use of dirty coal technology. Third, we need to improve the integrity of our offsets. And fourth, we need to reduce the temptations to have speculation enter in to the trading regime. So those are all ways that we need to strengthen the legislation from the House.

Q: And the second question from David is: Is there any policy or provision in the climate bill that can serve as a rallying point for progressive organizing and advocacy?

A: Certainly I think one key thing that I would encourage folks to focus on is renewable energy standard. Because this is really about substituting green renewable energy, wind, and wave, and solar and geothermal, for the carbon-based energy that we are currently using. Right now, we are bringing a lot of fossil energy out of the ground. We're burning it, it creates carbon dioxide; we break that through these renewable energies. Having a very strong standard, and implementing it as quickly as possible, would be a huge rallying point that would create not only a lot of clean energy, but a tremendous number of clean energy jobs which would be great for recovering our economy, and strengthening the financial foundation of our families.

Conclusion: So I want to thank David for his questions, and thank all of you for caring so much about the stewardship of our planet, about the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil, and about creating a strong clean economy. Thank you.

A few notes on items Sen. Merkley mentioned:

As far as raising the 2020 targets: In addition to Merkley, several senators on the Environment & Public Works Committee have called for raising the 2020 targets from 17% to 20% (below 2005 levels), including Whitehouse, Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This will be a heavy lift on the Senate floor, where many coal-state Dems are leery even of the weak targets in the House's Waxman-Markey bill.

Note the second item on his list: reducing the use of dirty coal. This seems crushingly obvious, but you almost never hear a member of Congress explicitly calling out coal as a climate culprit. The entire dance of the bill through Congress thus far has been about how to help coal and insure its future. It's nice to hear someone acknowledge the elephant in the room.

On the third item -- insuring the integrity of offsets -- we need to hear more. This is a contentious subject among environmentalists. Just last week Friends of the Earth released a report calling offsets a "dangerous distraction." Since offsets are currently playing an important cost-containment role in the bill, the number available is unlikely to decrease. It may increase. Strict integrity controls will be crucial. There are actually some great measures in Waxman-Markey to regulate offsets, but the issue could always stand more scrutiny.

On the fourth item -- worries about speculation in carbon markets -- readers know I'm with Kevin Drum (i.e., skeptical). I just don't think it's very high on the list of worries. But of course responsible regulation of markets is always good, and the measures proposed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) seem solid. Boxer has said that she'll include them in her bill.

As for the answer to the second question, Merkley is dead on. One thing progressives have lacked in the climate fight is something analogous to the public option in the health care debate -- a single rallying point around which progressives can organize and advocate. Without those bright lines, it's incredibly hard to activate people. I've had debates with various folks about what the rallying point should be on the climate bill, but I've always believed the best place to focus is the renewable energy standard (RES). The public understands clean energy, and they support it in overwhelming numbers. The RES was weakened in the House energy committee but could be strengthened in the Senate -- this is a winnable fight, on the right side of public opinion.

Anyway, many thanks to Sen. Merkley for answering our questions. We hope this will be an ongoing dialogue.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles