With the start of international climate negotiations just days away, and with global allies and public interest organizations pressing the United States and China for emissions reductions, the White House and Beijing have spent the last two days in an apparently coordinated program of announcing critical steps to help push the world as close to a binding agreement on climate change as possible.

Today, China announced it would set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 relative to economic development. China said it would limit what it calls "carbon intensity" by 40 to 45 percent compared to 2005 levels, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. The New York Times reported that the targeted emissions reduction was a "voluntary action" and taken by the Chinese government “based on our own national conditions,” the State Council, China’s cabinet, said in a written statement.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the White House made public three important steps. First, President Obama will attend the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. His appearance on December 9 comes a day before he receives the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. President Obama will be among the more than 60 heads of state scheduled to participate in the Copenhagen negotiations, which occur from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18 and include delegates from 192 nations.

Second, the Obama administration said it is prepared to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 “in the range” of 17 percent below 2005 levels, and that the overall goal of the U.S. is to reduce emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels in 2025, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

“For the first time, an American administration has proposed an emissions reduction target. When President Obama lands in Copenhagen, it will emphasize that the United States is in it to win it,” said Senator John Kerry, a Democrat of Massachusetts and one of the leading advocates of climate action on Capitol Hill. “This announcement matches words with action."

And third, the administration is establishing a U.S. Center in Copenhagen and sending its natural resources, environment, climate, and energy A-team to aid negotiators, hold news conferences, and present formal talks. The high-ranking delegation is meant to underscore what the White House said is “the historic progress the Obama administration has made to address climate change and create a new energy future.” Among the president’s senior aides scheduled to be in Copenhagen are Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, along with Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate, and Nancy Sutley, the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

India Yesterday, China Friday
Both announcements come after President Obama and India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, signed a series of cooperation agreements on Tuesday to launch a U.S.-India “Green Partnership” on energy security, climate change and food security. The three features of the U.S.-India announcements that are compelling are 1) a commitment to a strong outcome in Copenhagen, 2) collaboration on clean energy research and deployment, and 3) capacity building in India for climate adaptation and environmental governance.

The efforts by the Obama administration to collaborate with China and India appear clearly intended to establish President Obama's global leadership on climate action, a path he staked out for himself and the United States since the 2008 presidential election. Moreover, for weeks the Obama administration has plainly signaled its resolve to make the Copenhagen negotiations, if not the final step in writing a new climate treaty, a substantive conference with historic influence in securing the environment and advancing a global clean energy economy. Earlier this month, during the U.S. – China summit in Beijing, President Obama declared his intention to draw as close as possible to a climate agreement that has tangible results. “Our aim is not a partial accord or a political declaration,” the president said, “but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect. This kind of comprehensive agreement would be an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution to our climate challenge.”

Consistent with Domestic Legislation
The emissions targets made public this week by the White House are consistent with the proposed schedule of greenhouse gas emissions reductions contained in climate and clean energy bills that passed the House in June, and passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this month.

The White House, however, did not announce targets for financial commitments to help developing nations adapt to climate change and the low-carbon economy. That number has been anxiously awaited by the European Union, and many of the world’s developing nations. Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, took note today of the urgency of making those commitments as well. "The US commitment to specific, mid-term emission cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the
last doors to a comprehensive agreement," De Boer said in a statement today. "Let there be no doubt that we need continued strong ambition and leadership. In particular, we still await clarity from industrialized nations on the provision of large-scale finance to developing countries for immediate and long-term climate action."

In responding to the White House announcement, American environmental and climate action groups generally expressed satisfaction in the president’s decision to attend Copenhagen. But almost all noted that the president needed to follow his administration’s strong presence in Copenhagen with a full-court press in Congress to pass domestic climate and clean energy legislation. Doing so, they said, will advance the work of clearing the skies of climate changing pollution and accelerating the clean energy economy in the United States. And a domestic law would help reach a legally binding and final global climate agreement next year.

“It's great that he's going to Copenhagen,” said Angela Anderson, the program director of the US Climate Action Network, a coalition of nearly 90 organizations based in Washington, D.C. “And he needs to keep Air Force One warm so that he can return to seal the deal.”

Get It Done in Washington
“It’s essential that President Obama communicates his personal commitment to ensuring Congress passes climate and energy legislation in early 2010,” added Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The world needs to hear that this will be a top priority for him and the Senate once Congress completes its work on domestic health care reform.”

The president’s Copenhagen travel plans also prompted criticism from opponents to climate action and clean energy, among them Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who considers climate change a scientific “hoax.” “It's clear that China, India, and the developing world, which will soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, will not accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties from President Obama,” said Senator Inhofe in a statement today. “The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateral action by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm our economy and have virtually no effect on climate change."

But Senator Kerry told a reporter for E&E News this week that the White House emissions target “lays the groundwork for a broad political consensus at Copenhagen that will strip climate obstructionists here at home of their most persistent charge, that the United States shouldn't act if other countries won't join with us. It is an enormous shot in the arm for those of us working overtime to get a comprehensive bill passed in the Senate. And the fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line."

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Learning how to count to 350

Senator Kerry:  Has your study been peer reviewed?
Kenneth Green:  No, I don’t work in the peer review literature, Senator. I don’t work for a university.

Steven Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently said, “The brain waves of the American right continue to be erratic, when they are not flat-lining.”  He may have had in mind his AEI colleague Kenneth Green, whose lack of knowledge on climate was laid bare for all to see by Sen. John Kerry in today’s Finance Committee hearing.

I don’t know what is more revealing and embarrassing for Green and AEI — that Green couldn’t actually name a single peer-reviewed study in his defense or that when Kerry calls him on it, his only defense is an appeal to authority — his own “opinion” (!):

Green:  All I can say, Senator, is that I read the IPCC reports, the science of climate change report in its totality cover to cover, I follow the latest journals, my doctoral degree is in environmental science and engineering.  I daresay I’m capable of understanding the literature and forming my own opinion. I –

Kerry (interrupting):  Has your study been peer reviewed?

Green: Pardon me?

Kerry: Has your study been peer reviewed?

Green: No, I don’t work in the peer review literature, Senator. I don’t work for a university.

That is uber-weird.  Green seems to be suggesting (falsely) that you have to work for a university to write peer reviewed research.  Play the video.  It sure sounds that way — otherwise the second sentence is a pure non sequitur.

Kerry: So, you don’t submit your studies for any peer review?

Green: Ah, no.

Kerry: You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?

Green: That’s not correct, Senator.

Kerry: Show me a peer reviewed study.

Green: I’ll send you a list.

Kerry: Please, because nobody else has.

Green: I’ll be glad to.

With the help of AEI’s staff, Green will probably be able to find a handful of now-debunked peer-reviewed studies that “support” his position, but it remains telling that he couldn’t name a single one when asked in a public forum.  Kerry called his bluff, and Green folded.

Here’s the early part of the exchange:

Green:  Canada, for instance, can agree to a target and if they don’t do anything they can’t be sued into government compliance.  The U.S. is unique in the status it gives treaties, when we sign a treaty, we live up to it.  Other countries can sign treaties and not live up to them.  That is a fundamental difference that makes the U.S. hesitant to embrace treaties as a general role, and I think wisely because treaties have a very high status in American law that is not necessarily reflected in the other countries.

Kerry:  Well, actually Dr. Green, that’s not entirely true. (Laughs a little)  I’m sorry.

(Republican senator demurs in the background)

Well, let me tell you why it’s not, Senator:  I was at the treaty signing which we ratified unanimously in the U.S. Senate — the 1992 framework convention, which George Herbert Walker Bush negotiated, and it’s been 18 years since, and we haven’t done a thing to meet it.   In last 8 years emission in U.S. in green house gasses went up 4 times faster than in the 1990s.  So that’s the reason we’re talking about the need to move to a mandatory reduction — because we didn’t, and nobody else did, either.  A few people tried, here and there.  So you just can’t just throw that stuff out there and say we do it, they don’t, blah blah blah.

You don’t accept that you have to hold it at 2 degrees.  You may know something that thousands of other scientists don’t.  You know, they won a Nobel Prize; you and I didn’t.   And they won it for their work that said you got to hold it at 2 degrees Centigrade.

The G 20 … said we have to hold it at 2 degrees Centigrade.  Maybe you know something we don’t about where the tipping point is.  But I got a lot of scientists that I respect, who’s life work — from John Holdren who’s now the science advisor to the president, to Jim Hansen over at NASA and a bunch of others — who tell us that we have a ten year window to meet the standard of keeping the temperature from rising over 2 degrees Centigrade, or you reach a tipping point….

All of the evidence is coming back faster and to a greater degree than they predicted underscoring the predictions they made.  At some point you have to step back and say these guys are making sense because what they said is going to happen is happening and it’s happening faster and at a greater risk.

If this had been a boxing match, the referee would have stopped it.  Here’s more:

Kerry: Every most recent scientific update, and I get them periodically.  I ask them to come in and say what’s happening; is it less than, what’s the rate?  And without exception they look at me and say “Senator, I can’t even talk about some of the things that are happening today publicly because people won’t believe it.”  Like columns of methane rising out of the ocean floor that you can light a match to and it will explode and burst into the open air because the permafrost is melting.

We just voted $400 million to move Newstalk, Alaska, to move it inland because of what’s happening in terms of the ice melt.  There’s some 400 villages threatened.  Ask Lisa Murkowski, or Mark Biggouch about what’s happening in Alaska.

All I can say to you is that we have to employ the Precautionary Principle here.  If I’ve got a few thousand scientists over here and you and a few others over here, the weight is pretty heavy to say to me that as a public person I ought to implement the precautionary principle.  And if I have chief executives like Jeff Immelt, Lou Hay, and Chad Holliday of Dupont and a bunch of other people who run Fortune 500 companies telling me, “Senator, we have to price carbon.  And we want certainty in the market place,” I’m going to listen.

Unless you can give me an overpowering reason why those guys are all wrong, and I don’t think you have….

Green:  All I can say, Senator, is that I read the IPCC reports….

He may have read them, but he didn’t get anything out of them.

Green’s lame defense of himself is no surprise since he regularly spouts stuff like, “No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly” — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).  And last month, he weirdly compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals.

Kudos to Senator Kerry for exposing this American Enterprise Institute “expert.”

CAP’s Russell Sterten helped with this post.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

It's widely assumed that if Congress fails to pass a clean energy bill, the EPA will step in with regulations on CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007's Mass. v EPA that it must do so if it finds CO2 to be a dangerous air pollutant -- and sure enough, the agency sent the White House its final endangerment finding Monday. EPA regulations now appear inevitable and unstoppable. But don't be so sure.

The threat of EPA CO2 regs is a thorn in the side of fossil-fueled legislators and one of the few points of leverage green Dems have. It has hovered over congressional climate negotiations, bringing recalcitrant lawmakers to the table. It's generally agreed by both sides that regulatory emission restrictions would be worse for power companies than legislative restrictions; a recent Wall Street Journal story covered several utilities lobbying for legislation on that basis. EPA regs would be "more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade," said Exelon head John Rowe. Some enviros have gone so far as to claim that it would be preferable for the weak legislation in Congress to fail so that tougher EPA regs could take its place. (A dangerously wrong notion, IMO.)

Is it true, though, that EPA regulations are inevitable and unstoppable? It might seem so, given the stark clarity of the Supreme Court's ruling. But never underestimate the plasticity of congressional procedure or the willingness of conservatives to use any means necessary to protect their corporate constituents.

I put the question to a senior Senate legislative aide a while back: Is there really nothing Republicans and conservative Dems can do to stop the EPA? He smiled ruefully and told me to look into what happened to CAFE standards in the mid-'90s. This Congressional briefing paper (PDF) tells the story:

In October 1993, less than one year after taking office, the Clinton administration issued its Climate Change Action Plan, and this included a process that was to be co-chaired by the White House National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Environmental Policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In April 1994, it published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to develop fuel economy standards for light trucks for model years 1998-2006. Seven months later, Republicans won control of Congress and promptly began to attach "riders" on annual appropriations bills to prevent funding for administration activity to develop or implement new fuel economy rules for light trucks. These riders blocking progress on fuel economy improvements remained in place until President Bush took office.

Could the same thing happen to EPA regs that happened to CAFE regs under Clinton? Well, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has already tried once, back in September. Her amendment was poorly written and she ultimately backed down without forcing a vote on it. But as the aide told me, it would be possible for a more adept legislator to write a more carefully tailored amendment that would block only the stationary-source regulations and leave the (more popular) vehicle regulations untouched. Obviously Republicans don't control Congress now, and unless the most catastrophic predictions play out, won't in 2010 either. But hostility to EPA regulations on power plants cuts across party lines. And remember, what's needed here isn't 60 votes against the EPA regs per se -- just 60 senators who think passing an appropriations bill is more important than standing up for the EPA. The thing about appropriations bills is that they really need to pass or parts of the federal government go unfunded. There's enormous pressure; that's why members of Congress are fond of attaching riders to them.

EPA opponents will have plenty of opportunities to build a coalition, as E&E reports (sub rqd):

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who cosponsored Murkowski's amendment, said there would be "extremely dangerous consequences" if the administration is allowed to "unilaterally" regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that the cost of gasoline, food and manufactured goods would skyrocket. He said the EPA regulations should be delayed until Congress has had a chance for a full and open debate on the issue.

"This issue will be back," Thune vowed. "Senator Murkowski will bring it back; I will bring it back."

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, welcomed the senators' opportunities to air their grievances on the floor.

"I'm glad it was debated and I think Senators Murkowski and Thune were right to bring it up and it got them the chance to make the point," he said, adding that the point "will be made over and over again."

Over and over again, whee! In terms of raw numbers, there are probably more than 60 senators hostile to EPA regs. The question is whether some core number of coal-state Dems can be kept in line in the name of party discipline. You know how Senate Dems love party discipline.

What happens if an appropriations bill with an EPA-blocking rider comes to a vote? The only option for green Dems would be to filibuster. There are certainly legislators who seem willing to do so. In a conversation with National Journal last week, Sen. John Kerry said this:

I'm going to make this as clear as I can: I don't think anybody is going to wind up repealing [EPA CO2 regulations] because there's filibuster-proof capacity to prevent that from happening. ... I'll personally stand on the Senate floor day and night to prevent that from happening, and there are plenty of procedural ways in which to do that. So that's not going to happen. I don't see any scenario in which that does, and there are plenty of people who would stand there with me. This is not a solo effort by any sense of the imagination. As I've said, there is a clear number of votes that would not allow that to happen, assuming we're moving in good faith down the road.

This is tough talk. And there's plenty of precedent for blocking appropriations bills (see this section of Filibuster: obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate, by Greg Wawro and Eric Schickler). Dems famously filibustered a defense appropriations bill with a rider that would have opened the Arctic Refuge to drilling.

But Kerry's talking about mustering 40 liberal senators to block a much-needed bill on behalf of a policy that both the White House and EPA have spent the last year badmouthing and that most "centrist" senators oppose. That will be tricky political terrain, to say the least.

If there's a sufficiently large bloc of senators motivated to block the EPA, they'll probably find some way to block it. But the point here is not so much to try to predict what might happen. It's just to say that EPA regulations of CO2 are not "inevitable." Nothing in politics is inevitable; nothing's a sure thing; everything's a risk; everything's a fight. Those who would abandon legislation in Congress in favor of EPA regs run at least some risk of consigning the U.S. to years without any restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

This article redirects here: http://www.grist.org/Senate-climate-bill-reactions

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

What to make of the new climate poll

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

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:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

There've been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. So let's take a step back and try to get a handle on how the story is unfolding.

In the House, the development of the Waxman-Markey bill was a relatively orderly process. Waxman took control of the Energy committee early in the session and selected Markey, who'd been fleshing out a progressive bill in his special committee, as his wingman. Together they introduced a bill and then worked it past the committee members, making concessions when necessary, mostly behinds closed doors, always tightly in control of the process. The idea was to do the bulk of the negotiating in-committee so that the resulting bill could pass on the floor without undue fuss. In the end that's just what happened.

Boxer desperately wanted to play the same role in the Senate. It didn't work out in early 2008 with the Lieberman-Warner bill, but she's been working overtime to make it work this go-round. One recurring theme of last week's three-day hearing marathon was Boxer's refrain that she's going to work with other senators, that the bill will change, that she's open to feedback. She practically hung out an "Open for Business" sign. She clearly wants to run this bill and emulate Waxman's success.

Just as badly, lots of other people don't want her to. Baucus made it clear early on that his committee would mark up a bill too, and then other committees jumped in. Inside EPW, James Inhofe desperately wants to give Boxer a black eye. That's why he and the rest of the committee Republicans boycotted the markup of the bill on Tuesday and Wednesday and show every sign of carrying on with that boycott. It now looks like EPW is going to pass a bill out of committee without a Republican ever having touched or debated it and without substantial markup of any kind. [UPDATE: Yep, the bill passed out of committee on Thursday morning without any GOP involvement.]

That bill will be a dead letter. Already there's an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it's associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body's most liberal committees. The Senate isn't like the House. There is no party discipline among Democrats; in fact, Democratic senators are fond of explicitly disclaiming party discipline. It's a chamber full of large, jostling egos and not a little old-boy sexism. They're not about to let a combative liberal woman run the show.

So a bill that's Pure Boxer won't fly. That's why you saw, on Wednesday, the Senate's perceived centrists -- Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman -- swoop in and and open a "dual track" of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. (Lieberman lives to do this kind of thing.) Graham seemed to rebuke his colleagues on the EPW Committee: "If you can't participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?" he asked. But at the same time he, along with fellow moderates Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, signed a letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson reiterating the Republicans' essentially preposterous demand for another five weeks of study of the bill.

An EPA official testified to EPW on Tuesday that such a study would be expensive, time-consuming, and utterly unnecessary. There's no substantive rationale whatsoever for demanding it. Remember, though, this isn't about substance -- it's the Senate. It's about perception. And what moderate Republicans are signaling here is: "Whoa, slow down the crazy liberal lady!"

Similarly, by stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It's pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

In short, it seems that Boxer's high-water mark of influence on the bill has passed, and with a fizzle rather than a bang.

-----

Addendum: I should emphasize: this is all perception. Is Boxer really a crazy liberal? No. Was she jamming a liberal bill through her committee too quickly? No, the bill was relatively modest, similarly to the intensely analyzed House bill, and she was being almost absurdly solicitous of the feedback of the committee's Republicans. Is Boxer too abrasive to do the delicate work of shepherding a bill through the Senate? Well, there may be something to that. In Congress it's all about staff, and D.C. rumor has it that Boxer's staff director, Bettina Poirier, is a controlling and alienating presence. EPW has been hemorrhaging key staff for a while now, and more than one Senate staffer has a tale of being misled or bypassed entirely by Boxer's staff during negotiations over the bill. All those stories feed the general sentiment that Boxer just shouldn't be the one running this. Fair or not, that's the perception, and perception is reality in the Senate.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.

While other Senate Republicans led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) boycott action on the climate crisis, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has chosen a leadership role. In a press conference today with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Graham rebuked Republicans unwilling to address carbon pollution, asking, “If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?” Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham’s words recall the testimony of former Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and White House official Van Jones, who told Congress in January, “We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of.” Van Jones, the founder of Green for All, left the White House after talk show host Glenn Beck targeted him as an “avowed communist and radical activist.” Beck has warned that efforts to build a green economy are “socialism,” “black nationalism,” and “fascism.”

Sen. Kerry announced that the three senators would work in a “dual track” to the committee process now underway to craft clean energy legislation in concert with the White House, which they hope to present directly to the Senate leadership. The senators conducted the press conference in between meetings with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House climate advisor Carol Browner.

Graham also discussed how Americans of any party “really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much,” saying that part of “this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.”

Graham emphasized that his vision is to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer,” because he believes that “controlling carbon pollution is good business.” Although he hoped for participation from his fellow Republicans, he said, “If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do.”

Transcript:

GRAHAM: The reason I’ve gotten involved in this issue is I see kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity politically to solve two real problems that I think the country and the world faces. One, carbon pollution. I am no scientist, but I’ve traveled throughout the world with Sen. McCain and others and seen the effects of a warming planet. And I do believe all of the cars we have on the roads, and the trucks, and all the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet.

But if environmental policy is not good business policy, you’ll never get 60 votes. So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs. Virginia and New Jersey are going to benefit from what we do. South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will benefit.

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money. The business community senses an opportunity they’ve not had before. That’s why they’re at least exploring the possibility of a new pathway forward.

I’ve been told by a lot of business leaders in South Carolina, “Senator Graham, once you price carbon in a reasonable way, this green economy that we’re hoping for really will begin to flourish.”

The other aspect of why I’m involved is energy independence. Remember “Drill here, drill now”? Where did that go? Four dollar a gallon gas is not in our face but it could be soon. I think most Americans — Republicans, independents or Democrats — really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much. Part of this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.

Finally, our country doesn’t have a vision on carbon. We need one. And we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. Our country doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to build a green economy and never will until we price carbon.

And our country doesn’t have a vision for energy independence. We need one. Our goal is to create that vision that not only will help this planet — that I think is in peril — but create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.

. . .

What I’ve got to do is convince people in South Carolina and our colleagues up here as a whole that environmental policy will be good business policy. And if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will.

Every member of Congress, Republicans included, has to answer to themselves and their constituents. Is carbon pollution a problem? If it is, what are you going to do about it? Some Republicans want a carbon tax. In many ways, that is a fairer system but I don’t think there are the votes for it. If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do. Now, if you … a cap-and-trade bill has to be well-crafted not to put us at competitive disadvantage to China and India.

I am convinced with my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business. If you do it right, people can make money and you’ll have a cleaner planet and the world will follow. So I hope my Republican colleagues will at least listen, come to the table as the Chamber has, see where we’re going, give us input and if at the end of the day, you can’t support it, that’s okay.

But last thought. Doing nothing has a consequence. The EPA will do something. Doing nothing has a consequence to our business opportunity in leading the green economy revolution that’s coming and controlling carbon emissions.

So I think most people are upset with the Congress because we’re not doing anything that matters. And the things that we do do we’re overdoing. So we’re trying to get that sweet spot of a bill that will be good for the environment, good for business and make us energy independent.

So my hope is that participation is seen as a positive, not a negative. If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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

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:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

When John Kerry speaks, the kids listen up.Photo: Cliff1066 via Flickr Creative CommonsOn a conference call Tuesday night with young climate activists, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) served up several newsy tidbits, starting with his hint that sort-of climate news will come out of President Obama's upcoming trip to China and that getting a bill through Congress will mean compromising with Republicans who want more nuclear energy.

Kerry's comments came on a call organized by Green For All focusing on how young people can help up the ante in demanding a clean energy future. Kerry, Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, and Hip Hop Caucus President Rev. Lennox Yearwood took turns speaking, with the conversation acutely attuned to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (cosponsored by Sen. Kerry), which is the subject of Senate committee hearings this week.

Coming off the climate and energy bill's first day of Senate hearings, Kerry sounded encouraged by the "very strong showing by the administration" (four cabinet secretaries and the EPA chief testified). He said President Obama is "committed" to getting the bill out of committee before the Copenhagen climate talks in December.

At the same time, he owned up to the utter vulnerability of the bill, 'fessing up to young people: "We're gonna need your help."

Ellis-Lamkins, meanwhile, praised two specific provisions of the House and Senate climate bills that are designed to spur green jobs among those who need it most -- young people from low-income families and minority ethnicities. The first is the Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project, which creates a pathway to middle class green jobs for low-income citizens. The second is increased funding for the Green Jobs Act, an existing program that trains low-income workers in green job skill sets.

Residents of Indiana, New Mexico, and North Dakota received special attention for their fence-sitting or possibly obstructive senators. For example, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have signaled an interest in splitting off the climate change provisions of the bill from the clean energy portion, the thought of which gives Kerry the heebie-jeebies. "We won't meet our responsibilities" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the climate change pollution reduction mechanisms are dropped, he stressed, sounding very stressed himself.

"Don't be scared of this," he warned. "Be scared of buying oil from the Middle East" and compromising national security. "Be scared of China, India, Germany, passing us by" in the clean technology revolution.

Kerry set the bill in context for the listeners: "Only two percent of American companies are covered by this [climate and energy bill]," but that small percentage of industries represents 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout his "you-young-folks-can-do-it" speechifying, he really hammered the populist message:

"This is about pollution, folks ... We ought to fight about pollution in America again," in the manner of the Clean Air Act, he said. "We're talking about pollution from companies acting irresponsibly" and damaging the planet, and "we must hold them accountable."

In response to one caller's question, Kerry admitted that in order to secure the much-coveted 60 Senate yays, he and his allies were going to have to be open-minded: "We must include nuclear with proper ... oversight, incentives of some kind for natural gas, but I don't think this will ultimately hurt things because the marketplace decides what works best." (Hint: He's betting that'll be solar and wind.)

Another questioner pointed out the recently lowered expectations for the international climate talks at Copenhagen and wondered how to mobilize support in America for a legally binding treaty.

Kerry said "the president is prepared to offer fixed reductions" of greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen, but that this process is a messy one. Kerry noted that Obama will be taking a "very important" trip to China soon, hinting at further climate negotiations with the Chinese and of possible announcements to follow, which he said he "hope[s] will set the stage for Copenhagen."

Even so, Kerry was doubtful about setting the bar too high for December's summit, saying, "Copenhagen won't come up with a full treaty." But he said he was somewhat optimistic that having a "firm agreement" in place might buy enough time for negotiators to "meet again in a matter of months" to finish up what is started in Copenhagen.

Determined to end the call on an upbeat note, Rev. Yearwood told Kerry: "You fight on the Hill, we'll fight in the 'hood."

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

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

At today's hearing on the Kerry-Boxer bill, Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) was spouting the usual lies about the high cost of the policy. Kerry responded:

That's good, but he could have said so much more. Even with those shortcomings of economic models, the costs turn out to be "modest," in CBO chief Doug Elmendorf's words.

For more on why economic models overestimate the cost and underestimate the benefits of green policy see: "Why we overestimate the costs of climate change legislation."

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Barbara Boxer (at podium) and John Kerry (tall guy in blue tie) introduce their climate bill.Photo:

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

When it comes to the debate over climate and energy legislation, there are those in Congress and business for whom any bill will always be too much, and there are lawmakers and environmental groups for whom no bill will ever be tough enough. In between the two extremes, there are the middle paths, variously labeled as "centrist," "moderate," or "compromise" alternatives. Some of these are more viable than others, some are well-defined proposals, and some are just talking points being pushed by coalitions of like-minded senators who want a hand in shaping a final bill.

How do you get 60 senators to agree on a single ice cream order?SeRVe61 via FlickrIn reality, most of them are just variations on the larger theme. Senators of all stripes are screaming for some kind of climate and energy bill, but like schoolkids at the ice cream parlor, each is crying out for a different flavor. But at this particularly unfair ice cream parlor, the kids all have to share the same helping, begging the question: Is there one flavor that can please at least 60 senators and get the backing of the House?

Handicapping the various approaches in the Senate isn't easy. Honestly, no single proposal has a chance of winding up as the final favorite. It's more likely the final climate and energy bill will be a mix of flavors, more sundae than ice cream cone.

The thing about ice-cream sundaes is that they're rarely good when crafted by committee. Once the Senate is done ordering, will we wind up with a pleasing dessert or a sticky mess? It all depends on how strong your stomach is.

There's a strong bloc of coal-state senators who have already made their feelings clear: They want giveaways for coal. There was a similar movement in the House, and as a result its Waxman-Markey bill ended up with a strong coal flavor. The problem with adding coal to the mix is that for a lot of other lawmakers, it ruins the climate bill. If a good, pure climate bill is a scoop of vanilla, the plan to include incentives for greenhouse gas–emitting utilities (and exceptions for coal mines) is the equivalent of adding a big dollop of coffee ice cream. It has a distinct flavor, and any amount of it tinges anything it melts into.

Unfortunately for coal haters, this flavor is likely to be dropped in the middle of our sundae ... highly likely. It happened with Waxman-Markey, and for the predictable reasons (like the big coal lobby, inclusion of powerful coal-state Dems in the middle of the process, etc.) it's going to happen again.

A proposal from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) offers a different take on cap-and-trade. Written from the left of Kerry-Boxer and just 32-pages long, it's a pint-sized piece of legislation [PDF] that turns the cap-and-trade equation on its head (it doesn't bother with a complicated trading system -- it starts at the top where the carbon enters the system and caps it there). Unlike Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer, both of which would give away substantial portions of any carbon credits, Cantwell's proposal requires that 100 percent of the credits be purchased by the industries that need them, making it a proposal that only a true liberal could love.

Cantwell's plan would push the flavor of the sundae away from coffee (er, coal) to something more natural tasting. But like a good Ben and Jerry's flavor, as well intentioned as the folks behind it are, it's going to be a niche flavor. There are some good arguments that it would make the cap-and-trade process smoother -- limiting carbon by focusing on energy inputs, rather than emissions -- and some of that may be reflected in the final bill. But it's just not appealing to enough people to ever be the No. 1 brand.

Most on the right side of the Senate would rather not see a climate and energy bill at all -- many still won't admit there's either a climate problem or an energy problem that can't be solved with coal. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), however, has been quite active in promoting a plan for expanding nuclear power. Not so long ago, it was thought Alexander might actually come to the table with some kind of serious proposal, but lately, he's seemed more interested in taking the wind out of the clean-energy movement.

His proposal to build 100 nuclear plants in the next 20 years seems kind of grandiose (there are only 104 commercial nuclear plants operating in the country now, and not one has been brought online since 1996), bordering on disingenuous. Alexander's "concern" about non-nuclear energy sources is how much space they take up -- wind energy, for example, apparently leads to energy sprawl, and that poses a threat to his beloved Great Smoky Mountains (good thing all those upwind coal plants aren't a threat ...).

Yes, Alexander does have a point that nuclear energy is a low-carbon solution, but it's hardly without environmental concerns. Between his sales pitch for nuclear as a space-saver and it's kind-of-creepy, decidedly unnatural downsides, it's only fitting that Alexander would be asking for a big scoop of that dehydrated horror -- space ice cream. And as much as many environmentalists hate it, there will probably be some of the freeze-dried nuclear flavoring dumped on top of whatever climate and energy bill ekes into the law books. It won't be the 100 nuclear plants that Alexander is calling for, though... for the same reasons we don't make ice cream sundaes out of space ice cream -- it's too unnatural and too creepy for too many people.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was the original cap-and-trade guy, back when he was a moderate with cred on both sides of the aisle. Rumor has it he's back at it again, trying to tie together the coal-state Dems and the nuclear-loving moderate conservatives.

But Lieberman's flavor is kind of like Neapolitan ice cream -- OK in theory, but who wants something that isn't really vanilla, isn't really chocolate, and isn't really strawberry? (Coincidentally, it apparently freeze-dries into space ice cream very well.) Maybe 30 years ago, the Senate was the kind of place where that "little bit for everyone in the same plastic tub" mentality prevailed, but today the upper house is a highly partisan place.

What's most likely to happen with Lieberman's proposal is it will provide an opening for the nuclear folks to push for a strong nuclear title. In fact, it's already happening -- Senate Dems who want a deal on climate so badly are already doing just that. Lieberman has been instrumental in getting Kerry to sit down with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.), a Republican who says he doesn't want to be the party of "angry white men" (and even suggested angry men should leave a town hall meeting if they didn't like him paling around with Kerry).

Graham and Kerry's joint proposal calls for expanded use of natural gas and nuclear, offshore drilling, and protections for U.S. industry faced with competing against less-carbon-concerned foreign competitors. But for every voice hailing the joint offering as an answer, there are two furious voices complaining. And let's not forget, Graham isn't endorsing the current draft legislation -- in fact, he's quite openly trying to replace the cap-and-trade that's already been written (or to use his words at 1:29, "make sure it's dead.")

Track the debate and take action >>>

The climate bill will change from what we first knew as the Kerry-Boxer bill. On Oct. 27, when hearings on the bill are scheduled to start, it may very literally be like standing in line at the ice cream parlor with 100 school kids -- some screaming exuberantly, others having a temper tantrum, and more than a few crying because their scoop fell on the floor. The rest of us aren't getting any ice cream until they've all been placated.

Oh, and by the way: After you convince your school-bus load of senators to dig into the compromise sundae, you've got to figure out how to get at least 218 House members on board too. A razor-thin majority of representatives ate at the same ice cream parlor earlier this year, and not many left with a good taste in their mouths.

There are some who are just desperate to get any climate bill at all -- they may be willing to stomach whatever pile of melting ice cream is plopped in their bowl by these unruly kids. Of course, there are also those who have checked out and want no part of the process.

As the climate bill meanders its way through the Senate over the next month or so, all sides will need to stop hoping for a bill that meets every one of their criteria. Reaching a compromise, as the debate over health care reform is already showing, will come down to a key question: How much are the Democrats willing to give away in order to secure one or two votes from the other side of the aisle? Or, more simply: how badly do they really want ice cream?

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Lindsey GrahamSen. Lindsey Graham has stepped up to become the leading Republican advocate of a bipartisan climate bill.  In a New York Times op-ed on Oct. 11, Graham joined with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to put forward a framework for climate legislation that they say can pass Congress and become “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.”

Graham wants a climate bill that will:

That’s certainly not the left-wing dream for a climate bill, but the right wing despises it nonetheless.  Graham has taken quite a beating from right-wing activists for partnering with Kerry and even for believing that climate change is a real problem. 

Graham has gotten lots of money from nuclear-power companies over the years, so it’s no surprise he’s pushing for legislation that would benefit the industry.  Mainstream enviros don’t like Graham’s nuclear boosterism, but are hesitant to be too critical because he could help get the 60 votes needed to push a climate bill through the Senate.  He’s already influenced Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who recently said she might support a bill if it boosts nuclear power and oil drilling.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Despite his work toward a climate bill in the Senate, Graham is no fan of the House climate bill that passed in June.  “What I’m trying to do is make sure that the Markey-Waxman bill from the House is dead,” he said at an Oct. 12 town-hall meeting in Greenville, S.C., where conservative activists were attacking him for his climate stance.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

This week brought news that made all sorts of people say, “Well, damn!”:
The climate-bill support of one Senator Lindsey Graham.
The damners on the left are thrilled that Graham thinks with his head.
The damners on the right shout, “Lindsey, why’d you get in bed!”

They’ve also had some more choice words, like wussypants and RINO*
And douchebag, asshat, Dem in drag—good grief, they sure can whine-o.
I hope this douchebag has some spine, and gets more Sens. on board
Or climate change will send his critics straight unto the Lord.

 * Republican In Name Only.

Lindsey explains it all.lgraham.senate.gov

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

Right-wing activists across the nation are enraged by Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) decision to work with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to craft comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation. In an op-ed published in Sunday’s New York Times, Graham and Kerry discussed their agreement on a framework for mandatory global warming pollution reductions linked to government support for the nuclear, coal, and natural gas industries. The Natural Resource Defense Council’s Dan Lashof embraced the announcement as a “game changer.” Bill Scher noted that Graham has “crossed the climate Rubicon,” abandoning denialist conservative activists by recognizing the threat of global warming and working with Democrats. Graham has even said “it doesn’t bother me one bit” if President Obama gets credit for a policy victory:

I think the planet is heating up. I think CO2 emissions are damaging the environment and this dependence on foreign oil is a natural disaster in the making. Let’s do something about it. I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.

Graham’s willingness to drop blind partisanship for the chance to shape corporate-friendly climate legislation is making him the latest target of the extremist right, who drove Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) out of the Republican Party and demonized Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). Yesterday, Graham held a town hall meeting in Greenville, S.C. in which local Tea Party activists accused him of “going to bed with John Kerry” and making a “pact with the devil,” accusations which generated tremendous applause by the assembled crowd.

Watch it:

This unhinged response is reflected in the conservative blogosphere, where Graham has been called a “fake Republican,” “RINO” (Republican in name only), a “traitor,” “disgrace,” “asshat,” “democrat in drag,” and a “wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy”:

Liberty Journal: Vote out the traitors who seek control of you with the use of your money paid in the form of taxes.

Mike Proto: Quite honestly, it is growing tiresome having to report on another fake Republican who is selling us out. In this case, it is the RINO senior senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. . . . Now, the faux Republican is teaming up with none other than John ‘F’n’ Kerry on C(r)ap & Trade.

Michelle Malkin: God save us from bipartisanship.

Gateway Pundit: Senator Graham is a disgrace.

Ross Kaminsky: Lindsey Graham is little more than Barack Obama’s useful idiot, a man who clearly has no interest in the scientific data and who is so desirous of “doing something” that he barely cares what it is he gets done.

Dan Riehl: Why does S.C. continue to re-elect this doofus with a bad haircut?

Bruce Tyson: The RINO traitor to all that is right, just, and good, South Carolina’s own Lindesey Graham [sic] has done it again: this time siding with John Kerry on climate change fraud.

Pamela Gellar: Any Republican who signs off on the bankrupting of America vis-a-vis junk science climate change legislation is a traitor. Lindsey Graham is an asshat.

Founding Bloggers: They are selling us out to cover up for the fact that depression era entitlement programs, combined with greed and corruption, are wiping us out.

Angry White Dude: Graham is, in a word, a douchebag being used for his vote ...  Just like his daddy Supreme Rat McCain, Graham is a Democrat. South Carolinians, you’re better than that … those of you who aren’t liberals. Do something about it the next that wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy comes asking for your vote! He is no friend of America!

Mark Harvey: Just like McCain, Lindsey Graham is actually a DIG, a democrat in drag.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

Al Franken (D-Minn.)

Conventional wisdom says that the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill faces a long uphill slog against unlikely odds. Many Senators, especially those in the "center," think it's unpopular. They think it will raise prices during a recession. They think it will unfairly hurt their states. They see little political upside and lots of possible downside.

Here's the thing about Beltway CW, though: it always forecasts delay, difficulty, and failure. And it's always right. Until it's wrong. As Al Gore is fond of saying, politics, like climate, is nonlinear. An accretion of small changes can build beneath the surface of the news cycle and emerge unexpectedly as a rapid shift. The odds in Vegas may still be against the bill, but there are reasons for cautious optimism. Seven of them, actually.

-----

1. Key Republican support is already in place, as Sen. Lindsey Graham takes to The New York Times editorial page with John Kerry to offer full-throated support for passing clean energy legislation this year:

It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.

Graham has been making noises, but this is thunder. The Kerry bill will not be able to pass without at least a little Republican support giving cover to conservative Dems. Graham is offering that cover early in the legislative process.

He's also made the price clear: more support for nuclear and offshore drilling. That's odious, but less odious that it appears at first blush, and an affordable price relative to the benefits of passing a bill.

Snowe and Collins are likely yes votes. With Graham so far out ahead on this, McCain may be shamed into joining him (though he's far from a sure thing). Together they could get a second hearing from other Senators like Isakson who love nuclear power. (Alexander's probably a lost cause now that he's in leadership.) Their combined influence, coupled with his longstanding relationship with Obama, could pull Lugar over. In Florida, Crist could see this as part of his legacy and influence LeMieux to get behind it. At some point you can imagine a snowball effect, though the odds of breaking five Republican yea votes are still fairly low.

2. Health care reform might just work out after all. The Finance Committee finally passed a bill, it was scored favorably by the CBO, and floor debate approaches. After what seems like an eternity, there's finally some consensus and momentum. It's possible to imagine a bill passing in the next couple months. When that train leaves the station it will (finally!) free up much-needed Senate staff attention for when the clean energy train pulls in. It will clear the deck for Finance to mark up the Kerry bill (if Baucus decides he wants to, God help us all).

If a good healthcare bill is signed into law, it will have an enormous boost on morale and generate further momentum.

3. The public wants this bill. Conservative Dems are behind the times. They haven't been keeping up with the latest polling, which shows that clean energy reform is broadly popular, even in swing states. Recent focus groups show that the right's "energy tax" attack isn't working. It gets crushed by the message that America needs to take control of its future, cut dependence on unfriendly countries, and create new jobs. Americans want it to get done and they're willing to pay for it. Clean energy in particular is wildly popular -- a recent poll found that "77% of Americans feel the federal government should make solar power development a national priority, including the financial support needed."

There's a good story to tell even about the most carbon intensive states. They are protected in the bill by consumer rebates and allowance money for trade-exposed industries. Every state has enormous potential for efficiency, and according to a new report:

At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders. Every state with a renewable energy mandate can meet it with in-state renewable fuels.

Clean energy reform has potential benefits for every state and area of the country. It's a winning political issue.

4. International pressure is becoming intense. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize can be seen, at least in part, as a reward for taking the U.S. in a new direction on climate change. Accepting the prize will put him in Oslo on Dec. 10, right next door to Copenhagen, just as international climate talks begin there. Hint, hint.

Once upon a time the lack of action in China and other rapidly developing countries could be used as an excuse for delay in Congress, but that too is quickly changing. China is moving. Japan is moving. Indonesia is moving. Even India is moving (see also). Developing countries have made it clear that they're willing to be part of a global system of emission reductions. Global green campaigns like 350.org and TckTckTck are building cross-cultural consensus around a set of baseline metrics. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. to step up. That puts enormous pressure on Obama to deliver the goods, which he can't do without Senate support.

5. The administration is engaged. The administration has been criticized by greens for neglecting clean energy in favor of health care, and it's true that with the exception of his U.N. speech Obama has mostly focused his public remarks elsewhere. Still, the accusation isn't entirely fair: there's an extraordinary level of engagement on clean energy legislation at the cabinet level, probably more so than on health. Browner, Chu, and Jackson have been advocating for the bill and meeting individually with Senators for months.

What's missing so far is the full force of Obama's personal popularity and persuasiveness, the most powerful forces in American politics. Everyone agrees the outcome in the Senate will at least somewhat turn on the level of his involvement.

6. Greens are getting their act together at last. The formation of the Clean Energy Works coalition a month ago presaged a period of relatively happy media news for greens. Some of it was the Chamber of Commerce stepping on rakes, but some credit goes to a more consistent message and concerted efforts to highlight stereotype-busting greens like veterans and business execs. There are targeted ad campaigns, media stunts (from groups like the Avaaz Action Factory, Greenpeace, and MoveOn), and a growing grassroots youth movement (see: Energy Action Coalition's PowerShift 09) making noise. It's getting loud enough that even Congress can hear.

7. The business community is divided, as recent defections from the Chamber of Commerce demonstrate. More and more CEOs realize that the demographic they most covet -- young people -- cares about climate change, expects companies to be environmentally prudent, and expresses that opinion in purchasing decisions. Being backwards on climate is bad branding and bad business.

Ten years ago, every hot-sh*t entrepreneur, engineer, and investor wanted to change the web. Today they want to change the grid. They understand that clean energy legislation will unlock enormous business opportunities. Big companies want to get their hands on those opportunities, which is why they're actively lobbying for a bill.

When Chamber of Commerce president Thomas Donahue, a guy sitting comfortably at the center of an old boys network of long standing, finds himself offering defensive, incoherent pabulum on the subject of climate change and whining about big mean environmental groups ... something has changed.

----

Given the brittle system by which legislation is passed in the U.S., with all its chokepoints and 60-vote mega-majority minimums, failure is always a safe bet. Despite all the heated talk about what Obama must "demand," the truth is that the fate of this bill (and everything that hinges on it) lies with a small handful of Senators, Republicans and conservative Democrats who aren't accountable to him or his agenda. Their political concerns are more idiosyncratic.

Nonetheless, there is a clear path from here to passage. If everything goes right and the Senate is willing to step up to history, it could happen.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The Climate Post is a weekly roundup of climate news, produced by the The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

First things first: The U.S. Senate is looking at new climate change legislation as the COP-15 global talks in Copenhagen approach this December. These two stories have fed off and driven each other all year. That they are happening together offers a clear view of just how stark differences are on what the U.S. should do.

There’s money. Rich nations have it, but are reluctant to part with it. Poor nations want it, to gird climate adaptation strategies and to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon systems. The U.S. dropped opposition to a new international organization that would oversee climate-related fund transfers from rich to poor countries.

There’s trade. U.S. states dependent on exports and energy-intensive manufacturing fear a loss in their economic competitiveness if the U.S. adopts a low-carbon strategy and key competitors don’t. The U.N.-mediated process in fact excludes developing nations from such a requirement. That’s not changing so quickly, even against the steady background hum that the two-tiered system, for rich and poor nations, is flawed, possibly by Western “sabotage.”

Fortunately, there are also the ministers of the Maldives, willing to inject gallows humor into the proceedings.

Dating advice for negotiators: President Obama is unlikely to receive as cool a reception in Copenhagen in December, if he goes, as he did last month when Chicago’s Olympic bid took him to, uh, Copenhagen. John Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute muses in Politico about the differences in public opinion on climate change between the U.S. and Europe. His conclusion is the international climate negotiation version of, “He’s just not that into you.”

At least a handful of senators and executive branch officials are struggling daily to challenge that conclusion by making new policy. Democrats, particularly Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has discussed the inclusion of nuclear energy provisions in the climate bill with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (D-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). The bill is not expected to pass before the Copenhagen talks, Carol Browner, Obama’s chief climate adviser, said publicly this week.

The White House is expected to regulate heat-trapping gas emissions, despite its stated preference for legislation. A path through the Environmental Protection Agency may be fraught with domestic political risks for the administration and lawsuits over new rules.

Model universe?: A scientific paper [PDF] published last year by Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a team that includes several paleoclimatologists came to the tentative conclusion that the world should shoot for a climate stabilization target of 350 parts carbon dioxide for every million parts of air, or 350 ppm. (The preindustrial value was about 280 ppm. We’re currently near 390 ppm.)

A new study looks at economic implications. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University and the Stockholm Environmental Institute has led a team of economists in modeling economic scenarios by which the world stabilizes at 350 ppm by 2200. The researchers use the common Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy (DICE), but make assumptions that treat the possibility of extreme climate change with greater emphasis. They assume a much higher value for the climate’s temperature sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, a much lower value for the depreciation of the dollar over time, and vary the scale of climate damages.

Is seeing really believing?: A British environmentalist is suing his former employer, a major property company, on the grounds that it violated his religious or philosophical belief that climate change is real and people should alter their lifestyles to eliminate carbon pollution. This approach, that climate change is a belief system, must be maddening to scientists. After all, scientists make a living by collecting and explaining data. Science writers filter it for people less inclined to read peer-reviewed journals. So the notion of “believing” -- which is generally not driven by skeptical data collection -- runs in the opposite direction how scientists learned about climate change in the first place and how they keep tabs on it. On the other hand, unless you’re collecting and analyzing all the data yourself, which no human being possibly has time for, chances are that on some basic level you end up having to choose to “believe” somebody …

A passage to India: India has undergone a significant makeover on its public climate rhetoric in the last two months or so. Its central positions haven’t changed. The “per capita principle” remains in effect, the guarantee that Indian per capita emissions will never pass that of rich nations. U.S. emissions are on the order of 20 tons per person. In India that figure is just higher than one ton. India will not accept binding emission reduction targets. It will not abide U.S. protectionism in climate policy. There are at least 100 million more Indians without electricity than there are all Americans, in total.

The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh acknowledges that the climate threat is real, and is expected to introduce domestic legislation next month targeting fuel efficiency and building codes. India itself may be at risk for some of the most perilous regional changes, in the monsoon that brings the region 70 percent of its precipitation, and in the Himalayan glaciers that feed major rivers -- and provide drinking water to one billion people.

For the next three weeks, Climate Post will be traveling through India -- Kolkata, Bhubaneswar, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Mumbai, New Delhi -- speaking mostly with colleagues in journalism, but also with audiences at companies, universities, and NGOs to talk about what we can learn from each other on this global problem. Posts will come as close to their usual “Thursdays at three” as circumstances allow (Perhaps even closer than usual … ). Again, circumstances permitting, more frequent updates will come through CarbonNation, a (much-neglected) personal blog. The trip is sponsored by a U.S. State Department grant.

My goal for this trip is to help build a bridge between journalists and interested observers in the U.S. and India, some kind of electronic journalism “buddy system." Details TK. Feel free to help us out: Send questions and comments about all things India here. Let’s try to get them answered and addressed.

See you next week in Kolkata …

Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Here's how the first line of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act [PDF] begins: "Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill ..."

See whose name is first there?

It's not "Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer introduced" either. He's introducing it. This is John Kerry's bill. Boxer has signed on as a co-sponsor.

Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.

It's widely acknowledged that Boxer bungled the Lieberman-Warner bill last year, particularly in managing (or not, as the case may be) the floor debate. And there are rumors that she's already stepped on toes and pissed a bunch of people off in the process of putting this bill together. For instance, earlier this month a group of eight Dem senators sent Boxer some legislative language on carbon capture and sequestration. They said it was "imperative" for her to include the language in the bill, not language senators use lightly. These were exactly the swing Dems Boxer will need votes from: Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), Arlen Specter (Penn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey Jr. (Penn.), and Joe Lieberman (Conn.). Suffice to say, the language isn't in the bill.

Some of the grumbling is probably just the typical Capitol rumor-mongering, and some is undoubtedly related to the fact that she's a strong woman who speaks bluntly, but perception is reality in D.C., and for whatever reason, Dems don't have faith that Boxer can manage this process. She's just not that well liked -- except by Reid, which is why he allowed her to stay on as co-sponsor.

Kerry's Senate record isn't exactly littered with major accomplishments either, but from all accounts he's completely thrown himself into this. It'll be a real test of his chops, and if he defies the odds and shepherds it all the way to passage, he will finally have the Kennedy-sized accomplishment he's always wanted.

Related Links:

A Global Climate Agreement: China, India, United States Make Commitments to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles