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:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

Science historian Weart on global warming

Obama speaking on clean energy in MIT's Kresge Auditorium. Photo: Dominick ReuterObama delivered a speech on energy at MIT on Friday, marking the kick-off for what is likely to be a protracted effort by the administration and Democrats in the Senate to pass the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill.

Those hoping for policy substance or firm commitments were disappointed. There were no specific requests of the Senate, no bottom lines, no references to the climate negotiations looming in Copenhagen. Obama stuck with the strategy he's used from the beginning: his words are broad, sweeping, and inspiring, but on the details and mechanics of policy, he plays his cards close to his vest. He is incremental, careful, and solicitous of Congressional prerogative. Just as he did on health care, he is standing back to let the Senate find its equilibrium point. That drives progressive activists crazy -- they want ultimatums and confrontations -- but it's too early to judge whether it will be successful in the end.

Consequently, the speech was mostly boilerplate that's become familiar to those following this issue. Obama hyped the Recovery Act, which put money to doubling renewable generation capacity and represented "the largest boost to scientific research in history." He noted the "growing consensus" behind action, with a specific shout-out to the Operation Free Veterans for American Power Tour. He delivered a paean to the American spirit of progress, action, and innovation, and declared that whoever captured the growing clean energy market would lead the world economy in the 21st century.

Rhetorically, there was an interesting move. He noted two common myths of opponents: that there's no problem, and that addressing the problem will destroy the economy. He said that those who peddle denialist falsehoods about climate change "are being marginalized," and noted that "it's the economic system we currently have that limits our prosperity." Great stuff. But it was another myth, he said, that was most pernicious, because almost everyone indulges in it: that is the myth of defeatism and cynicism, that our "politics are too broken" to address this issue. That, not myths about climate or the economy, is the highest barrier to action.

While I (and other folks deeply engaged in this issue) obviously would have liked to hear more meat on the bones, it is worth noting that this narrative -- the narrative of innovation, American can-do spirit, and global economic competitiveness -- is by far the strongest one Dems have going for them. They haven't always been consistent about sticking to that narrative. (If I hear one more reference to the "cap-and-trade bill"...)

Hopefully, Obama's speech marks the beginning of better communications strategy, one that goes on the offense, that shapes a forward-looking vision, rather than constantly being on the defensive and working inside the frame of opponents.

Watch the speech:

Here's the full text of the speech:

12:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please, have a seat. Thank you. Thank you, MIT. (Applause.) I am -- I am hugely honored to be here. It's always been a dream of mine to visit the most prestigious school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Applause.) Hold on a second -- certainly the most prestigious school in this part of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Laughter.) And I'll probably be here for a while -- I understand a bunch of engineering students put my motorcade on top of Building 10. (Laughter.)

This tells you something about MIT -- everybody hands out periodic tables. (Laughter.) What's up with that? (Laughter.)

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives. And in particular, I want to thank two outstanding MIT professors, Eric Lander, a person you just heard from, Ernie Moniz, for their service on my council of advisors on science and technology. And they have been hugely helpful to us already on looking at, for example, how the federal government can most effectively respond to the threat of the H1N1 virus. So I'm very grateful to them.

We've got some other special guests here I just want to acknowledge very briefly. First of all, my great friend and a champion of science and technology here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my friend Deval Patrick is here. (Applause.) Our Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. (Applause.) Attorney General Martha Coakley is here. (Applause.) Auditor of the Commonwealth, Joe DeNucci is here. (Applause.) The Mayor of the great City of Cambridge, Denise Simmons is in the house. (Applause.) The Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, is not here, but he met me at the airport and he is doing great; he sends best wishes.

Somebody who really has been an all-star in Capitol Hill over the last 20 years, but certainly over the last year, on a whole range of issues -- everything from Afghanistan to clean energy -- a great friend, John Kerry. Please give John Kerry a round of applause. (Applause.)

And a wonderful member of Congress -- I believe this is your district, is that correct, Mike? Mike Capuano. Please give Mike a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren't built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create -- to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it's a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation -- not just here but across America -- that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America -- it's the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it's the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail -- but might also change the world.

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year -- a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That's in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past. A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government. A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China -- an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis. We face threats to our security that seek -- there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that's so essential to our prosperity. The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that's always been central to our success. And that's especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels -- we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it. There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there's no question that we must do all these things.

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that's why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century. From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It's that simple. (Applause.)

That's why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand -- Governor Patrick's leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here -- I told him, you don't have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field -- and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader -- from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth's investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That's worth applause.

Now, even as we're investing in technologies that exist today, we're also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase -- that's an increase in funding that's already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he's doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake -- (applause) -- everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil -- (applause) -- we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country -- that I've met all across America -- they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts' own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy -- when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim -- make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

So we're going to have to work on those folks. But understand there's also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress -- and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important -- that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I've seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

Today's frontiers can't be found on a map. They're being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today's pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us -- the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers -- helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

I am confident that's what's happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

On ‘climategate’

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

More fake letters opposing climate legislation have come to light, with this latest batch being falsely attributed to senior-citizen organizations.

As we've reported previously, forged letters were sent to three U.S. representatives from Bonner and Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based group that specializes in astroturfing. Bonner was subcontracted by the PR firm Hawthorn Group to do work on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal-industry group that wanted to stop passage of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill in the House.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday released copies of five letters that hadn't been seen publicly before, including one we hadn't heard about previously, upping the total number of confirmed fakes to 13. Markey chairs the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Climate Change, which is leading an investigation into the scandal.

The newly discovered letter [PDF] was sent to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) under the name of Senior Center Inc. in Charlottesville, Va.  Perriello -- who received a total of nine forged letters, including some purportedly coming from minority groups in his district -- voted for the climate bill that passed the House on June 26.

Pennsylvania Democratic Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper and Chris Carney, who voted against the bill, also received forged letters claiming to be from senior groups. Markey has released copies of all the fake letters.

The letters written under the names of senior-citizen organizations are very similar. Here's the text of one sent to Dahlkemper [PDF] claiming to be from the Slippery Rock Senior Center:

Markey's investigation into the forged letters continues. According to a press release from his committee, "Dozens of letters still remain that must be verified as genuine or false -- all told, 58 letters were sent to the three members of Congress."

"We've seen fear-mongering with our nation's senior citizens with health care, and now we're seeing fraud-mongering with senior citizens on clean energy," said Markey in a statement. "Lately, democratic debate has been deceptively debased by fake facts and harsh rhetoric. We must return to an honest discussion of the issues, and ensure that this sort of campaign does not further poison the well of trustworthy debate."

Progressive Media, a joint project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and Media Matters Action Network, released a video on Tuesday about the forged-letter scandal:

Related Links:

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

One of the more macabre aspects of the still-evolving scandal involving the forged letters to Congress on the climate legislation was the disavowal of all responsibility by the Hawthorn Group -- the astro-turf lobbying group that has worked for nearly a decade to snooker public officials about allegedly "clean coal."

Since 2000, Hawthorn has worked for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electrcity (ACCCE), the alliance of coal companies, coal-burning power companies and coal-hauling railroads that seeks to convince us that coal is "essential" to America's future.

After the forgery scandal broke, Hawthorn quickly moved to blame its subcontractor, Bonner & Associates.   Noted Hawthorn CEO Michael Coe:

The Hawthorn Group deeply regrets that Bonner & Associates caused the fabricated letters to be sent to the congressional offices and its failure to follow up appropriately when they discovered the error. We maintain the highest ethical and quality control standards for our work, and nothing like this has happened in our 17 years in business.

What Coe didn't mention, of course, was that earlier this year Hawthorn was boasting to "Friends & Family" about how it had manipulated both politicians and the major media to extol the virtues of "clean coal" -- something that doesn't even exist!

The presidential campaign concluded with both candidates, their running mates and surrogates talking about and supporting clean coal technology... This was a 180-degree turn from earlier in the campaign."

So whether Hawthorn knew about the recent forgeries or not -- and we hope Rep. Ed Markey's investigation will uncover the truth -- the company appears to pride itself in conducting practices that deceive officials about the public's support for "clean coal."

Related Links:

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Henry Waxman and Ed Markey seem to have mastered the art of the non-concession concession: striking deals with potential opponents in ways that meet their needs while minimizing (though not entirely eliminating) the negative impacts.

Similar to their distribution of allowances, which seemed at first glance to be a massive giveaway but turned out to be far more equitable, the latest compromise between Waxman and House Agriculture chairman Collin Peterson seems to fall into this category. The agreement installs a five year moratorium on calculations for how ethanol and other biofuels affect international land use. Climate pollution is released into the air when American farmers switch their land from growing food to growing fuel, and South American agricultural interests burn the rainforest to clear land to grow additional food to fill the gap.

At first glance, that seems pretty bad, and in some ways, it is. As Environment America’s Anna Aurilio pointed out in E & E (sub required), "No one should be trying to legislate away scientific inquiry.” That’s true – and if there’s a possibility of undoing this concession, we should seize it. But in terms of actual impact on land and greenhouse gas emissions, this concession may be minimal. The 2007 law that mandated a “Renewable Fuels Standard” already exempts 15 billion gallons of ethanol from these land use requirements, and production may not exceed that mark, or exceed it significantly, within the moratorium’s five year time frame – meaning that this provision may have little immediate effect.

However, this concession does essentially punt the question down the road, which means that environmentalists and others concerned about ethanol’s impact (like anyone who pays more for food as a result of ethanol mandates), will have to be very vigilant five years from now to ensure that EPA does actually assess whether ethanol and other biofuels that destroy rainforests should qualify under the Renewable Fuels Standard.

There’s another way in which the legislation may make this concession less damaging than it seemed at first glance. The bill’s tropical forest provisions, which I summarized in this Center for American Progress post and here at Grist, will make deforestation much less financially attractive. By valuing forests for the carbon they store – and by providing incentives for reforestation – they make expansion into pristine areas much less likely. At current carbon prices, a hectare of rainforest could be worth $10,000. Depending on the price of carbon and the price of ethanol, it may make more strict financial sense for land owners, communities, and governments to invest in conservation instead of destroying forest for agricultural land for biofuels or other purposes.

In some cases, that will even be true in the United States where agricultural land values are much higher – farmers may be able to make more from reforestation or restoring their land to native prairie than continuing ethanol production, leading to a welcome conversion of at least marginal land to carbon-sequestering Nature.

The other main concession Waxman made was giving the Department of Agriculture primary jurisdiction over deciding what agricultural activities could qualify as offsets. As Tom Philpott chronicled here at Grist, if USDA continues its long tradition of altering science to meet whatever Big Ag’s financial interest du jour is, that could mean farmers would just get credit for pouring Monsanto’s Round-Up pesticide on genetically engineered crops.

But there’s some hope that USDA would actually apply science. In addition to bringing offsets to scale, we must also ensure that the offsets markets have high standards of environmental integrity to ensure that offsets result in real and measurable greenhouse gas reductions while bolstering efforts to conserve soil, water, and fish and wildlife resources. Tom Philpott added in an email (echoed by this post) to me that while we should view USDA’s promises with skepticism, he’s cautiously hopeful all the public scrutiny of these decisions will at least somewhat improve USDA’s commitment to the environment and science.

“I think the ag lobby will be surprised by the amount of scrutiny on ag offsets,” he said. “They are used to operating in obscurity, and haven't fully adjusted to this new era of public interest. Meaning that people like you and me can play an important role as watchdogs as this thing develops.”

At the end of the day, that’s the conclusion we need to draw. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey’s policy mastery and skillful negotiating diminished the negative environmental impacts of the compromises that are necessary to build a majority behind real action to solve this great global crisis – but we’ll have to remain involved for years to make sure those negative consequences stay diminished.

UPDATE: Ben Geman at E & E has news of how the bill’s biomass and biodiesel provisions have been changed:

Related Links:

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

A proven climate solution. Not since Earl Butz's famous "hedgerow to hedgerow" comment of the 1970s have America's farmers been at such a turning point. Food and farming policy in the United States is largely determined by the Farm Bill, behemoth legislation that comes around once every five years.  Yet, the current climate legislation--The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)--offers an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the way America farms. 

Since the start of ACES, agriculture interests have had an unspoken, yet powerful voice in the bill. Ag was explicitly exempted from the "capped" sector, which meanth that from the beginning, agriculture was always intended to receive offset benefits in ACES.  But the question remains whether agricultural offsets will be awarded to the types of practices and systems that are scientifically proven to actually reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequester carbon.

With the bill now firmly in the grasp of Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee it will surely be riddled with agriculture handouts when it emerges. But while Peterson may attempt to load the bill, the quality--not the quantity--of such offsets will determine how effective the legislation is at reducing GHG emissions.  Agricultural offsets and programs that fail to recognize the proven ability of organic practices and systems to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon will offer few real benefits for the climate, the environment, or a progressive farm future.  

An increasing amount of peer-reviewed science demonstrates the true ability of organic practices and systems to not only sequester more carbon than conventional and no-till agriculture (yes, even no-till, the industry's exalted climate change solution), but to inherently produce fewer GHG emissions overall.  This is a point I can't emphasize enough-climate legislation can not simply hope to sequester its way out of a looming environmental crisis.  Unless ACES makes actual and verified reductions in GHG emissions it will be ineffective.  And the best agricultural solution that has the science to back up such reductions is organic agriculture, with agroecological practices including abstaining from synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, cover cropping, pasture-based animal production, incorporation of compost and manures into soils, and prevention of fallow fields. 

So what does the science say?  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization concluded "[w]ith lower energy inputs, organic systems contribute less to GHG emissions and have a greater potential to sequester carbon in biomass than conventional systems." Research published by Pelletier et al. last year in Environmental Management found that organic cropping systems required half the fossil fuel inputs and generated three-fourths the GHG emissions of conventional agriculture.  Additional studies shared similar results, largely because organic agriculture abstains from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which require vast quantities of fossil fuels to produce.  If we are really aiming for "energy independence" why aren't we directing our farm policies to organic practices?

Still more scientific studies are finding that organic pasture raised animals offer a variety of climate benefits.  The United Nations estimates that animal production contributes nearly one fifth of all global GHG emissions, making it not only a significant source of emissions but a significant opportunity for reductions and mitigation.  Research by Flessa et. al. (2002) published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment suggested that transitioning to pasture agriculture is the single best way to cut GHG emissions in animal production.  Additional studies (Boadi et.al., 2004 and DeRamus et. al., 2003) determined that feeding livestock on pasture compared to feedlot diets usually consisting of corn and soy reduced methane emissions about 20%. 

The EPA has also determined that when manures are stored or treated in liquid storage systems commonly found on factory farms, the decomposition of manure produces great amounts of methane, unlike when manure is handled as a solid or deposited on pasture, range or paddock lands.  Manures spread appropriately on pastures and paddocks produce minimal amounts of methane.  Research has also documented that manure stores on conventional farms emitted about twenty-five percent more methane gas than organic farms.

So that's the first part- inherently fewer emissions because of the way that organic agriculture abstains from chemicals and synthetic ingredients and utilizes natural amendments which help store carbon.  This leads me to my next point- sequestration.  It's true that all agriculture can sequester carbon, but if it's doing so while simultaneously being doused in chemical fertilizers and pesticides the benefits are quickly lost.  The new current trend promoted by the agricultural industry is no-till or conservation agriculture, which leaves crop residues on the surface and cuts down on tilling the soil.  The supposed perks of no-till include increased sequestration, but recent evidence suggests otherwise.

The dirty little secret of no-till agriculture is that it increases pesticide use and also appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide--310 times as strong as carbon dioxide.  In fact, the USDA acknowledged last year, "By eliminating some or all of the tillage practices under conservation tillage, growers may rely more heavily on the use of herbicides for weed control." Additional studies have concluded the same.  And, increasing research suggests that under a variety of soil and climate conditions no-till agriculture actually increases nitrous oxide emissions.  This is coupled with numerous studies including Baker et.al in 2007 that suggest no-till actually doesn't sequester more carbon than conventional systems.

Recently though, USDA scientists concluded a nine year study comparing organic, conventional and no-till agriculture for sequestration and found the organic production system sequestered more carbon.  Scientists noted, "Despite the use of tillage, soil combustible carbon and nitrogen concentrations were higher at all depth intervals to 30cm in organic agriculture compared with that in all other systems."  Further, the scientists concluded that, "these results suggest that organic agriculture can provide greater long-term soil benefits than conventional no-till, despite the use of tillage in organic agriculture."

Thursday the House Agriculture Committee holds a hearing to review ACES, providing a key opportunity to recognize and act on the science behind the benefit of organic agriculture for climate change.  Yet, the current panel line-up does not seem promising- representatives include the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Corn Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, and even The Fertilizer Institute.  Where are the NGOs?  Where are the representatives for small family farm producers?  Where are the organic farmers? 

Progressive climate change legislation is no longer progressive when it perpetuates and rewards industrial agriculture that has been the main source of agricultural emissions for decades.  Failure to include organic practices and certified organic producers in ACES will set back our goal of reducing GHGs in the present and prevent America's farmers from economically transitioning to ecological farming.  It's not too late for the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman Peterson to realize this and set us on future farming course that not only feeds our country but cleans up the planet too.  

Related Links:

Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Photo: AP
We couldn’t let this photo of U.S. Reps Henry Waxman, John Dingell, and Ed Markey go unremarked (unreMarkeyed?)—so, caption ideas needed!  Submit them below in comments. Funniest idea gets a priceless Virtual High Five.

(With apologies to Eminem.)

Y’all act like you never seen a white person before
Jaws all on the floor like Lee Raymond just broke in the door
And started whoopin’ your ass worse than before
“This is just for the gas, pay me later for the war” (Ahh!)
It’s the revenge of the… “Ah, wait, no way, you’re kidding,
He didn’t just say what I think he did, did he?”
And Al Gore said… nothing you idiots!
Al Gore’s dead, he’s locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
Green young women love green young men
(chigga chigga chigga) “Hank Waxman, I’m sick of him
Look at him, walkin’ around grabbin’ his climate package
Oglin’ congressional pages, “Yeah, but he’s astute though!”
Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose
But no worse, than what’s goin’ on in your bankers’ HQ
Sometimes I wanna get on TV and just let loose, but can’t
But it’s cool for lumps of coal to sing Christmas carols
Our bill is on ya lap, our names is on ya lips
And if we be lucky, you might just tell it like it is
In between the eye-scratching and flinging cups of piss
No big mystery people don’t know what “cap-and-trade” is
But they do know about the warming and the oil biz
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Discovery Channel don’t they?
“Humans are the meanest mammals…” Well, some of us cannibals
Who cut other people open like cantaloupes {*SLURP*}
But if all we do is cry over endangered antelopes
We’ll be just another paragraph in the history of dead dopes
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Women wave ya pantyhose, sing the chorus and it goes

I’m Hank Waxman, and he’s Ed Markey
All you other wax Markeys are just imitating
So won’t the real green MC please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?

Related Links:

WWLD: What Would Lincoln Do?

Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative

More anti-climate-bill letters forged under names of senior-citizen groups

...in Ireland.

This is great news for the people of Ireland. But we need to create those jobs in the U.S. too. In Ireland, a country of four million, 10,000 "green" jobs were created in the last three months in organic farming, energy efficient construction, electric cars, and other green industries. With US GDP falling by 1.6% in the first quarter of 2009 we need more action and investment from our government and the private sector. Passing effective climate and energy legislation this year will increase both public and private investment in a clean energy economy, creating new jobs and lifting America out of the recession.

The Waxman-Markey Act recently introduced in the House could be the right start, but it currently falls far short of what we need. An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute found that of the $1 trillion in cap and trade revenue between 2012-2025, only $9 billion a year will be invested in clean technology. “This $9 billion is far less than what Obama promised ($15 billion) and far less than the $30 billion that three dozen energy scientists and experts, including several Nobel laureates, called for in a sign-on letter during the fall of 2007.”

Strong climate legislation will also encourage investment from the private sector, giving American businesses the opportunity to compete in a global economy. Currently, only 6 of the top 30 companies in solar, wind, and advanced batteries are US companies.  We can do better. The recession is the perfect opportunity for forward-thinking businesses to invest and put America back on the path to prosperity. Let's hope we can print headlines here, like the one above, very soon.

Related Links:

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

The House Energy and Commerce Committee kicked off debate of the Waxman-Markey climate bill on Monday, beginning what will likely be a grueling week of work to get the bill through the key panel before Memorial Day.

"I think members ought to be prepared to work late every single night," Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said after opening statements wrapped up Monday afternoon.

Waxman and co-author Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released the latest draft of the bill (PDF) late Monday afternoon. Committee members offered opening statements on Monday, and the process of offering amendments is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday.

The new draft weighs in at 946 pages, which has prompted some griping from Republicans that they haven't had sufficient time to review it. There was some fear (especially on the part of reporters who have to cover this stuff, ahem) that Republicans would force a reading of the legislation's full text before the committee proceeded to debate. While the minority waived that option, they have pledged to offer hundreds of amendments this week.

Delay of game

Estimates of just how many changes to the climate bill the GOP members plan to offer run as high as 449, according to a list (PDF) that has been passed around Capitol Hill. The list includes amendments that would allow individual states to opt out of the cap-and-trade program altogether, and another that would call the whole thing off should certain states lose 1,000 jobs due to restrictions on carbon emissions. Another proposed amendment would lower the 2020 emission-reduction targets.

The committee's top Republican and one of the most vocal climate change skeptics in the House, Joe Barton of Texas, is also planning to introduce a competing bill that would essentially defang the Waxman-Markey proposal by removing the cap-and-trade provision and letting preexisting coal-fired power plants off the hook for their emissions. It would also repeal the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that acknowledged the EPA's right to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, and would take away the right of states to set their own emissions standards. The bulk of Barton's proposal focuses on ramping up production of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power.

Fred Upton (Mich.), another senior GOP member of the committee, said Republicans planned to meet Monday night to prioritize their amendments. Upton said that he believes a number of Republicans on the committee could support the bill if they took out the cap-and-trade component, which of course would make it unappealing for the majority of Democrats on the panel.

Since Upton and other Republicans probably aren't going to be able to torpedo the cap-and-trade portion, they hope to convince some moderate Democrats on the panel to support changes to weaken it.

"I'd like to think there could be a number of Democrats who could support these," said Upton. "We'll see if we can't influence this with some amendments."

Dems holding firm

But Democrats – even the moderates – seem to be on board with the bill as is, after Waxman and Markey agonized over the specifics for three weeks before finally announcing a deal late last week. The authors have even managed to win over some Democrats who were expected to oppose a comprehensive climate deal. Coal cheerleader Rick Boucher (D-Va.) said last week that he is on board. And John Dingell (D-Michigan), a key ally of the auto industry, said on Monday, "This is a good bill; I intend to support it."

There are likely to be some amendments from Democrats, including one from Dingell that would create a Clean Energy Investment Bank to provide loans for research and development of new technologies. Other Democrats have indicated that they may introduce amendments to support additional mandates for automobile technologies and funding for international adaptation.

But it appears at this point that the Dems are united in a desire to pass the bill out of committee, and aren't going to take Republican bait. "The amendments they'll be offering will be designed to obstruct. I will resist those amendments," Boucher told E&E last week. "I will ask them be defeated, as will Chairman Waxman."

That doesn't mean that Republicans aren't going to try to drag this out as long as possible.

"Bring a sleeping bag," warned Barton at the close of Monday's meeting.

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

In his weekly address on Saturday, President Barack Obama praised Democratic Congressional leaders for their breakthrough on climate and energy legislation as a "promising sign of progress" on a top issue for his administration."

"Chairman Henry Waxman and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee brought together stakeholders from all corners of the country – and every sector of our economy – to reach an historic agreement on comprehensive energy legislation," said Obama.

"Longtime opponents are sitting together, at the same table, to help solve one of America’s most serious challenges," he continued."For the first time, utility companies and corporate leaders are joining, not opposing, environmental advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy initiatives that will help unleash a new era of growth and prosperity."

He also praised the bill itself, which he said will "reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and our climate," and will create "millions of new jobs for Americans.

"This we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy," said Obama. "America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal."

Watch the YouTube of his address:

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Democrats in the House have come close to agreement on a sweeping climate and energy bill. It's weaker than the original version, but backers say it has enough support to pass.

"We have resolved a good number of the issues," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters after a meeting of committee Democrats Tuesday night. "I believe we'll have the votes for passage."

Waxman and bill cosponsor Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had to wheel and deal to get the support of moderate Democrats from the South and Midwest, who had lots of concerns about the original draft. Some of the Dems may still vote against the bill, but Waxman believes enough of them are on board to move forward.

President Barack Obama praised the deal and Waxman's work during a summit on health-care reform on Wednesday. "I want to take a moment, before I start talking about health care, just to congratulate Chairman Waxman and the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats, who've made such extraordinary progress in reaching a deal on comprehensive energy reform and climate legislation. This is a major step forward in building the kind of clean energy economy that will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil."

Waxman plans to release the full text of the revised bill on Thursday. Next week, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and then the full Energy and Commerce Committee will begin offering and debating amendments, with the aim of passing the bill by Friday May 22, before the Memorial Day recess.

Republicans on the committee -- none of whom are expected to support the bill -- will do what they can to slow down and derail the process by offering dozens or even hundreds of amendments. "Bring your NoDoz Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday," said Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), the ranking Republicans on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee. "Lots of coffee."

Meanwhile, interest groups across the spectrum will be making a full-court press to change the bill to their liking.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

The revised text of the bill is not yet available, but some notable changes have been announced.

Near-term emissions reductions: The bill now calls for greenhouse-gas emissions to be cut 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, down from 20 percent in the original draft (but higher than the 6 percent some moderate Dems wanted). The longer-term targets remain intact -- 45 percent cuts by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.

Renewable electricity standard: The RES now requires 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2020, with up to 5 percent of that coming from efficiency improvements. The draft bill called for an RES of 25 percent by 2025. More flexibility has also been built into the RES: If a state determines that it cannot meet the renewable target, it can increase the efficiency component to 8 percent and produce just 12 percent of its power from renewables. This change is meant to allay concerns of many southeastern Democrats that their states don't have the renewable resources to meet a higher target.

"The revisions which are being made to the RES appropriately recognize regional differences by making necessary improvements to expand the list of qualifying fuels and to lower the alternative compliance payment," said Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the committee members who took issue with the original RES proposal. "With these vital changes, I believe that we have created a balanced and responsible policy to advance deployment of renewable electricity, and I am pleased with the product we are able to put forward on this issue."

Pollution permits: The bill would hand out the majority of emission permits free of charge, rather than making industrial polluters purchase them at auction. The original draft of the bill didn't specify how permits would be distributed.

Under the current deal, 35 percent of the total allowances under the cap would be given to local electricity distribution companies in the initial years of the program. It's not yet when and how those free allocations would scale down. Energy-intensive industries like steel, cement, and paper manufacturers would get 15 percent of the permits until 2025. At that point, the president would determine whether those free allowances were still needed.

"We’ve worked hard to develop legislation that will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions while preserving energy-intensive U.S. manufacturing jobs and protecting consumers from substantially higher electric bills -- and I believe that the agreement we’ve reached will do just that,” said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), who worked with Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) to develop the compromise language on permit allocation.

It's also not yet clear how many -- if any -- credits would be distributed to petroleum and natural-gas refiners, though estimates range from 1 to 5 percent. As of Wednesday night, it appeared that the bill's authors were still negotiating with two Texas Democrats, Gene Green and Charlie Gonzalez, on this issue.

Another deal made to please moderates, particularly John Dingell (D-Mich.), stipulates that the automobile industry would receive 3 percent of permits between 2012 and 2017, scaling back to 1 percent through 2025. The allowances will help "spur more innovations and new, green job creation here at home," Dingell said on Wednesday.

Preliminary reactions

Many interest groups are waiting to see the final bill in its entirety before offering up their reviews. But both greens and industry reps have indicated that the changes they've heard about so far don't satisfy them, and they're gearing up to try to influence the bill as it moves forward.

Sierra Club: "Chairmen Waxman and Markey have done heroic work in reaching agreement on the Energy and Commerce Committee around a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan, a critically important milestone that has faced seemingly insuperable obstacles," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said in a statement. But he continued, "It is clear that Big Oil, Big Coal and other polluters are still holding out for a congressional bailout. They will continue to try to riddle this legislation with loopholes, water it down, and load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in giveaways."

National Wildlife Federation: Joe Mendelson, NWF's director of global warming policy, said his group will push for improvements, but praised the process so far. "We understand that there are some deals that are cut, but ... the House has hammered out this agreement and is ready to move forward and actually pass climate legislation, which is monumental."

Greenpeace: Damon Moglen, Greenpeace's director of global warming programs, expressed concern that the bill has been watered down during the negotiating process -- and his group had already criticized the earlier draft for being too lenient.

Greenpeace is particularly unhappy about the lowering of near-term emission targets. "The goals need to be based on science and not on some political calculation about what industry lobbyists will accept and what they won't accept," said Moglen. "We are really worried if those goals are not taken seriously, and if the legislation doesn't track the necessary, scientifically mandated goals, the legislation really could not serve their purpose."

Moglen also pointed out that a weaker bill could hamper negotiations toward a new global climate treaty, which is supposed to be hashed out by the end of this year. "There is a real risk, if what is put forward is very weak ... then we can see those negotiations starting at the floor and not the ceiling," he said. "If the U.S. policy sets an inadequate series of goals and processes in place, those could become global."

Environmental Defense Fund: EDF has been more positive about the deal-making. The group is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an alliance of business and environmental groups whose blueprint for climate legislation formed the basis of the bill.

"To see a committee as diverse as Energy and Commerce get as close to actually producing legislation is really quite remarkable," said Steve Cochran, director of EDF's National Climate Campaign. "It does look like Mr. Markey and Mr. Waxman have broken the lock here."

Cochran said that because many of moderates' biggest concerns have been addressed, the bill has a better chance of passing through the committee, the full House, and ultimately the Senate, where climate policy in thought to be a tougher sell.

Duke Energy Corp.: A spokesperson for Duke, one of the key industry players in USCAP, said the company is waiting to see the full bill before offering an opinion. But Duke CEO Jim Rogers is now appearing in television ads sponsored by EDF that call for passage of a climate bill this year.

Electric Reliability Coordinating Council: Scott Segal, director of the ERCC, which lobbies on behalf of power companies, was less enthusiastic. He said it's unclear whether the near-term targets will allow enough time for companies to get new technologies in place to curb emissions. He has called for the bill to include a so-called safety valve, which would effectively put a ceiling on the cost of emission permits, and for more flexibility on the use of offsets.

"While I think that a lot of the changes in the legislation from a cost perspective constitute steps in the right direction, it's a little premature to say there's a deal," said Segal.

He also worries that the one-week schedule for markup of the bill is too tight. "I hope even with a truncated schedule like this there will be time to air all of these issues," said Segal. "If there isn't enough time, then the bill will be weaker for it."

But Segal does think Waxman is serious about sticking to his self-imposed Memorial Day deadline. "He has a reputation for determination, and I suspect that if he has to do 24-hour-a-day markups, he'll do it, to get it done."

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

House leaders have reportedly reached a tentative deal on a climate and energy bill -- and in the absence of details, speculation is rampant about how the bill has been weakened or otherwise changed.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the bill's coauthors, had wanted to start markup of the legislation two weeks ago, with the aim of passing it out of committee by Memorial Day. But it's taken longer than expected to reach agreement with moderate Democrats, who requested a lot of changes to the bill.

Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee are scheduled to meet Tuesday night to hammer out the final details; then text of the revised bill is expected to be unveiled on Wednesday, and debate is to begin on Thursday.

While the bill's authors have been mum about the negotiations, their moderate counterparts have made a number of claims about what will be in the bill.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) told Reuters late last week that the bill would give away the majority of carbon permits for "the first 10 to 15 years," rather than requiring emitters to pay for the right to pollute. Doyle and others have indicated that local electricity distribution companies would be given 35 to 40 percent of the permits, while roughly 15 percent would go to trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries like steel, paper, and cement, and up to 5 percent would go to refineries.

Informed sources on the Hill tell Grist that Doyle may be jumping the gun in claiming those decisions are final. But there is a lot of pressure from utilities, energy-intensive industries, and their sympathetic representatives to hand out a majority of the permits free of charge in the early years of the program. Waxman has acknowledged that to get the bill passed, some free permit allocations may be necessary, and would be reduced over time.

The near-term target for cutting emissions may be lowered in the new version of the bill, to 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The original proposal called for a 20 percent cut, but some were lobbying to go as low as 6 percent. Waxman balked at the 6 percent suggestion: "I think it is very low," he told reporters several weeks ago.

The 14 percent cut is at the low end of what the U.S. Climate Action Partnership proposed in its blueprint, which served as a model for the Waxman-Markey bill.

The target for cutting emissions by 2050 is likely to remain as it was in the original draft: 83 percent below 2005 levels.

The bill's renewable electricity standard is another component that may be weakened. The draft called for 25 percent of each state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. Southeastern Democrats were unhappy with that, so committee leaders are reportedly considering lowering the mandate to 17.5 percent, and could allow a portion of that to be met by efficiency measures.

Drill, maybe, drill?

Another bargaining chip with moderate Democrats might be offshore oil and gas drilling.

The Democratic-controlled Congress let the moratorium on offshore drilling expire last October, responding to public outrage over $4-a-gallon gasoline and the Republicans' "drill, baby, drill" chant. (Never mind that experts agree that more domestic drilling wouldn't do anything to lower oil costs in the near term.) Obama changed his tune on the issue while campaigning last year, saying he'd be open to more offshore drilling if it were part of a comprehensive energy plan.

Now the White House is floating the possibility of a "grand bargain" that would lump some expanded domestic oil and gas drilling in with broader climate and energy policy. A senior White House official told The New Yorker that the administration was exploring a deal that would include a cap-and-trade system and "serious" and "short-term" increases in domestic oil production in places like the California coastal region. House Democrats who met with Obama in the White House last week said the subject came up.

It's a plan that many enviros -- and many Californians -- wouldn't be too fond of, but it could bring moderate Democrats on board. It would also defuse the Republican talking point that Democrats are opposed to all drilling.

Such a deal could also help put in place new protections for the coasts. Now, in the absence of an offshore-drilling moratorium, the federal government could technically offer drilling leases for areas as near as three miles to shore. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar scrapped the Bush administration's lease plan in January, but said the Obama administration is open to drilling in some areas and would work with Congress to craft "a plan that makes sense."

The offshore-drilling issue would be handled by the House Natural Resources Committee, however, not the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is working on the climate bill, so additional deal-making would be needed to get everything into a single package.

Through all this, Waxman is sticking to his self-imposed deadline for passing the climate and energy bill out of committee before Congress leaves for its Memorial Day recess, but that's looking less and less likely as the holiday approaches.

Related Links:

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

The sponsors of the House climate and energy bill were supposed to release the final text of their legislation and open it up for debate this week, but the process has stalled out.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have been trying to come to agreement with moderates on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, who have balked at elements of the bill.

Waxman on Tuesday indicated that rather than trying to get the bill passed through subcommittee, he and Markey may fast-track it and skip to a full vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. "I'm still holding firm on my deadline to get a bill out of committee by the end of May and I believe that will probably require us to go right to the full committee and bypass the subcommittee," Waxman told reporters.

But he later issued a statement saying they haven't yet decided how to proceed. "No final decisions on process have been made. I am consulting with members of the Energy & Commerce Committee about the best way forward to ensure that we report a comprehensive clean energy bill by the Memorial Day recess," Waxman said in the statement.

Markey spokesperson Dan Reilly confirmed to Grist that they have not yet determined the best path forward. "All options are on the table," he said. "We're continuing to have constructive and productive discussions with all members."

About a dozen Democratic members of the committee met at the White House with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday to discuss the climate bill and other issues on the committee's plate. Obama encouraged them to reach consensus on the bill.

Said Waxman afterward, "We're working out these issues because we want to be together and we want to succeed in getting this legislation through."

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

President Barack Obama is inviting key House Democrats to the White House on Tuesday to discuss the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, as well as health care and other issues.  Obama is expected to encourage the Democrats -- many of whom have expressed concerns about the climate bill -- to come to consensus around it.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) -- who lead the Energy and Commerce Commitee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, respectively -- are currently negotiating with moderate Democratic committee members to get support for the bill.  They plan to start debating and amending the legislation in subcommittee this week, with the aim of passing it out of the full committee by Memorial Day -- just three weeks away. 

Obama has called on Congress repeatedly to deliver a climate bill to him this year, affirming in his March press conference, "We’ll get it done. And I will sign it." During his Earth Day trip to an Iowa wind-turbine manufacturing plant, he praised the draft bill from Waxman and Markey. "My hope is that this will be the vehicle through which we put this policy in effect," Obama said.

Still, some liberal members of Congress and environmentalists think the president hasn't done enough so far to support the legislation, and last week started calling for him to get involved.

This Saturday Night Live sketch might provide insight into what Tuesday's meeting will look like:

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Most of the news coverage in recent days, understandably has focused on the Markey climate hearings and speculation about when his subcommittee will actually start voting.  And now there is scrutiny of efforts by "moderate" House Democrats to gut the Waxman-Markey bill on behalf of Duke Energy, the Edison Electric Institute and other forces of darkness who assert with a straight face that "the consumer" is their only concern.

Across the Capitol, however, another important mini-drama is playing out. There, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has recommended approval of the very qualified Gina McCarthy, the environmental commissioner from Connecticut, to become head of the U.S. EPA air pollution control division. 

But two Republicans, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming, have said they'll try to "hold" the McCarthy nomination -- preventing a formal vote by the full Senate. The reason?  They don't like EPA's proposed "endangerment" finding (that greenhouse gases pose a threat to health and the environment.)

The Senate leadership ought to put a quick stop to this nonsense.  It's one thing for them to sit back and watch their House colleagues agonize over the climate bill. 

But the EPA can't function properly without having someone in charge of the air division.  We still have a huge air pollution problem, as the American Lung Association noted this week in its annual "State of the Air" report. McCarthy was a good choice, and she ought to be permitted to do her job.  And the way the special interests are mobilizing to undermine the very good intentions of Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, we're going to need the best minds possible at EPA to make some progress on climate as well as "conventional" air pollutants like smog, soot and mercury.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

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

Certainly the weakest part of Waxman-Markey is the 2 billion rip-offsets that polluters are allowed to purchase each year in place of reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.  After all, total U.S. GHGs in 2005 were about 7.2 billion tons.

Rip-offsets deserve to be called rip-offsets because it is far from clear how many of them represent real reductions (see discussion at “NRDC and EDF endorse the weak, coal-friendly, rip-offset-heavy USCAP climate plan” and below).

The good news in Waxman-Markey is you apparently have to purchase 5 tons of offsets to substitute for 4 tons of actual emissions reductions and you can’t get international offsets from a country that has not agreed to reduce its emissions — which together are vast improvements over the USCAP proposal.  Also, Waxman-Markey would in theory let EPA set tough standards for domestic rip-offsets.  How tough those would be in practice is anyone guess.

Certainly 2 billion is way too many, but rather than trying to rewrite the bill to sharply reduce those in the early years, which seems unlikely to be a successful negotiating strategy, I’d just suggest that progressives in Congress (and elsewhere), push to sunset the offsets.

After all, two main purposes of the rip-offsets are to:

Now if you don’t motivate polluters to change, you end up with the inaction of the coal industry — as typified by Jim Rogers in his interview on 60 Minutes this Sunday.

A decade ago the coal industry said “don’t regulate us, give us a decade to develop sequestration and other clean technologies.”  Well, they never seriously invested in sequestration and they refuse to adopt the many clean technologies that have been developed, as Rogers made crystal clear [see "Like Detroit, the coal industry chooses (assisted) suicide" and Bush wanted to destroy the future of coal as much as the industry did, Futuregen was “nothing more than a public relations ploy,” House study finds].

Now I see two basic sunset strategies.

The one I’d recommend is to sunset the offsets by 2030 with a steady decrease starting in 2012, allowing, say, 1 billion in 2020.  Another possibility that is weaker but probably more politically palatable is to apply the same reduction to the offsets that you are applying to emissions in the bill:

This, with the emissions targets in the bill, sends a strong signal that business as usual is over.  And I’d keep the 5 for 4 exchange ratio.  And I still certainly wouldn’t let any country without a cap have access to the international offsets, particularly China — with the one exception being certified, national accounting-based strategies to reduce deforestation.

Since I haven’t seriously dissed rip-offsets in over three months, let me repeat once more, as a major 2008 analysis from Stanford found

… “between a third and two thirds” of emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) — set up under the Kyoto treaty to encourage emissions reductions in developing nations — do not represent actual emission cuts.

And this led to the study’s stark conclusion:

… any offset market of sufficient scale to provide substantial cost-control for a cap-and-trade program will involve substantial issuance of credits that do not represent real emissions reductions.

The Government Accountability Office recently ripped rip-offsets: “The use of carbon offsets in a cap-and-trade system can undermine the system’s integrity.”

Also, the CDM is filled with fraud (see “You can call a rip-offset a CDM project, but it’s still a rip-offset“). Let’s remember that the West got suckered into giving China some $6 billion to destroy greenhouse gas refrigerants that probably cost Chinese companies $100 million to capture and destroy (for more details, see “Kyoto’s Great Carbon Offset Swindle“). Let’s remember that

U.N. regulators are also concerned that some independent auditors of these projects, who are responsible for vetting their environmental legitimacy, have been letting project developers push through ventures of questionable environmental value….

In a presentation to U.N. officials last fall, the head of Tüv Süd’s carbon business told U.N. officials that the quality of projects the auditors are receiving from carbon brokers is “going down,” according to the U.N. panel’s Mr. Schmidt, who was at the meeting….

“There is a high incentive” for companies to put together environmentally questionable carbon-credit projects, “because there is a lot of money that can be earned,” he said. “People are getting more inventive, so it’s getting harder to detect the black sheep.”

Let’s remember that instead of using the money to fund the transition to a sustainable economy, the World Bank “has loaned $1.5 billion to fossil-fuel companies to make minor greenhouse-gas reductions,” and “then sells carbon credits for those reductions,” and “takes its 13 percent cut”?

Let’s remember that “The vast majority of schemes that sell carbon credits to offset pollution are delivering 30% less than they promise“?

Now, the EPA can you probably weed out the worst of the domestic rip-offsets (as long as the agency is run by people who actually care about science and averting catastrophic climate impacts).  And for now, Waxman-Markey doesn’t buy into CDM.

So if we were to combine those Waxman-Markey offset provisions with sunsetting, then the bill would be much more palatable.

And, besides, aren’t sunsets beautiful?

UPDATE: Victor Flatt, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Houston Law Center, has an important related post: “Proposed Amendments to Waxman-Markey Could Diminish Integrity of Offset Provisions.”

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations

WWLD: What Would Lincoln Do?

As the House begins serious debate on a climate bill, the biggest sticking point is shaping up to be how much it will cost average Americans.

The Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday started four straight days of hearings on the draft climate bill sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The legislation would create a cap-and-trade plan that aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050. Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) want the bill passed out of committee by Memorial Day -- just five weeks away -- and approved by the full House by July.

The EPA estimated on Tuesday that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $98 to $140 a year, or 27 cents to 38 cents a day. But that didn't stop some Republicans from claiming the bill would wring Americans dry.

The committee's lead Republican, Joe Barton (R-Texas), wasn't present for the opening hearing, but he issued an advance copy of his remarks for Wednesday, in which he repeats the (now thoroughly debunked) estimate that a cap-and-trade plan would cost households more than $3,100 per year. He lambasts the Waxman-Markey bill as an "energy tax" and suggests that it would force Americans back to an 1875 standard of living.

For the most part, Barton's statement shies away from the outright climate change skepticism he's voiced at other hearings, focusing instead on the argument that the bill will be too costly.

Other Republican committee members couldn't repress their skepticism on Tuesday. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said he believes "the debate on the causes of climate change is still happening." Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) also questioned the "underlying science" of the Waxman-Markey bill. She warned that the pending EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is "like a gun to our heads," but said the bill being discussed is like "taking it and shooting ourselves in the chest."

Let's play ball

Tuesday's hearing, at which committee members offered opening statements, was the equivalent of the ceremonial opening pitch at a baseball game -- all show, no impact. But it indicated that getting the committee to sign off on the bill will be far from easy.

The real action starts on Wednesday, when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will kick off a parade of high-profile witnesses. Testimony from Al Gore, other environmental leaders, and a passel of corporate bigwigs will follow throughout the week.

Some Republicans on the committee appear willing to participate in shaping the bill rather just demanding that it be scrapped. At the same time, a number of committee Democrats are none too excited about the legislation.

Oregon Republican Greg Walden, speaking at the Tuesday hearing, called for more incentives for forest protections and a broader definition of renewable energy, but said, "I look forward to hearings on the substance of this matter so we can fix it and make it workable."

Pat Murphy (R-Pa.) also indicated that he believes climate change is a serious issue that should be addressed, and said that improved efficiency and investment in innovation should be priorities. "Where we can find common ground is we want clean air, a clean planet, and clean soil," said Murphy. "The question is, can we do this in a way that boosts our economy, creates jobs rather than sending them overseas, and where American families find opportunities rather than the loss of jobs."

Many Democrats and Republicans alike have complained that the 648-page bill lacks key specifics, including the percentage of emission credits that would auctioned off versus given away, and how the proceeds from an auction would be spent. Without those numbers, they argue, there's no way to know the real economic impact of the bill.

In introducing the legislation several weeks ago, Markey said he and Waxman had left those components open-ended so committee members could weigh in, but that appears to be an unpopular approach.

All 23 Republican members of the panel signed onto a letter to Markey and Waxman on Tuesday that protested the dearth of specifics. "[Y]our discussion draft lacks any decision on permit allocations versus auctions," they wrote. "The manner in which you will address this issue is the cornerstone of the legislation; without it, the bill is simply not finished and not ripe to be marked up or accurately discussed in the context of a hearing."

John Dingell (D-Mich.), who chaired the committee until losing the post to Waxman last November, also noted that the question of auction versus allocation might be a "deal breaker" for some on the panel.

More potential deal-breakers

Dingell also raised a concern, shared by others on the panel, that the bill's renewable electricity standard (RES), calling for 25 percent of power to come from renewable sources by 2025, is too aggressive and "might be more than states can handle." As a possible solution, he suggested that states be allowed to count nuclear power as renewable.

Southern representatives from both sides of the aisle worried that their states might not have enough renewable resources to meet the RES, including G. K. Butterfiled (D- N.C.), Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Charlie Melancon (D-La), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.). "We cannot achieve a 25 percent mandate by 2025," said Butterfield. "Not only is it impractical, but it is impossible."

Democrats and Republicans from coal states have concerns about the bill's plan to phase in strict carbon controls on coal-fired power plants, and they want more funding for carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology.

And while some moderate Democrats on the panel also expressed concern about the potential costs of the bill, they are equally concerned about the prospect of the EPA regulating emissions instead. "If Congress does not act, greenhouse gases could be regulated without the input of legislators who represent the diverse interests of this country," said Gene Green (D-Texas).

In their letter to Waxman and Markey, the committee's Republicans also requested an additional five hearings on the bill before members start offering amendments, to delve into topics like nuclear power and market oversight. No word yet on whether the majority will accommodate that request; with the timeline they've laid out for getting the bill passed, it would be difficult to schedule.

All of the hearings will be webcast on the Energy and Commerce Committee site, and we'll have regular updates as the they progress.

Related Links:

Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

As this is written, two House Committees — Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means — are considering climate legislation.  Both are following similar timetables, and hope to report bills by June.  

In the case of Energy and Commerce, chairman Henry Waxman has released a 648-page discussion draft.  The draft creates a large and complex carbon trading system but is silent on two key questions — whether initial permits will be auctioned or given free to polluters, and how revenue from permit auctions, if any, will be used.  Despite the silence on these questions, however, it is widely expected that the bill will give over half the initial permits to various industries for free, much as the European Union has done.  

By contrast, in Ways and Means, several short and simple bills — some involving a carbon tax, and others involving a cap with 100% auctions — are being considered.  All the Ways and Means bills have the same framework: they raise the price of carbon economy-wide and return the money to the people, thereby protecting families from the impact of higher prices.  In some bills the revenue is returned through tax reductions.  In Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s bill, it is returned through monthly per capita dividends.   

This post is not about the merits of either committee’s approach.  It's about allowing both committees to complete their work and present to the full House a choice of frameworks for pricing carbon.  
 
At the moment, there is heavy pressure from many quarters to abort the Ways and Means Committee’s work.  The party line is that two bills would be a distraction, and that everyone needs to get behind the Waxman bill, whatever it turns out to be.  
 
In my view, this ‘my way or the highway’ approach is ill-advised.  It is too soon to shut down a wider discussion of carbon pricing, and too soon to eliminate alternatives.  The time will come when that discussion must end and a choice must be made, but that time is not yet.
 
Why do I believe this?  Putting a price on carbon (or as I would prefer to say, on air) is a BIG DEAL, comparable in magnitude to Social Security.  It has monetary impact in the trillions, a huge impact on families, and is something we’ll have to live with for 40+ years.  It’s important that the way we price air/carbon is not a shotgun marriage, but a marriage entered into with public understanding and consent. The purpose of having two bills and debating them is to foster that understanding and consent.
 
The approaches being considered by the two committees are significantly different.  One would create a complex, opaque system that favors politically powerful corporations, the other would create a simple, transparent system that returns higher prices directly to the people.  It is a GOOD THING for Congress and the public to know that these two approaches are possible, and to discuss them for a while. Snuffing out that discussion before it happens would be a disservice to the democratic process, and ultimately to finding a durable climate solution.
         
Moreover, putting all our climate eggs in one basket is risky.  If that basket breaks, as well it might, we’ll have to go back to square one, and we’ll have lost much valuable time.  It’s therefore prudent to offer more than one way forward.  What the Ways and Means Committee is doing is developing a second way to price carbon and putting it out for public view.  That is a service for which they should be praised, not condemned.  

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]