I had previously blogged on the anti-mature (ante-mature?) antics of the Senator from Oklahoma (see Sen. Inhofe explains he’s going to Copenhagen so that when Sen. Kerry says “Yes. We’re going to pass a global warming bill” then “I will be able to stand up and say, ‘No, it’s over. Get a life. You lost. I won!’ ”).  Now this video has been posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93Fp_kmrz4&feature=player_embedded

Seemed like a fitting tribute to Friday’s big story, from the man who, just coincidentally, said on Wednesday in a lengthy speech on the Senate Floor, “I proudly declare 2009 as the ‘Year of the Skeptic,’ the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard.”

While I hardly ever agree with Inhofe, there’s no denying that many scientists who question the consensus are finally being heard … thank goodness!

You can find some of those scientists in my category “Uncharacteristically Blunt Scientists.”  See also my 2008 post, “Disputing the ‘consensus’ on global warming.”  Certainly the majority of the scientific observations and studies since the 2007 IPCC report — which is typically labeled the “consensus” since every single member government must approve the summaries word for word, a process that inevitably waters down the language — makes clear global warming is coming faster and harder than the consensus had suggested.  You can find a variety of those studies here and below.

And, for clarity’s sake, yes, I draw a distinction between what I’d call the “basic scientific consensus” that the climate is changing and humans are the main cause and so on  — which is acknowledged by every major scientific body (click here for links) — and the “future impacts consensus” on what the world faces if we stay on our current emissions path, which recent analysis suggests has been underestimated and underanalyzed by the IPCC.   See, for instance, the presentations delivered at the recent “Four degrees and beyond” conference, one of which I blogged on here — UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but “we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.”

Related Posts:

var addthis_pub="climateprogress"; var addthis_options = 'twitter, email, stumbleupon, facebook'; var addthis_test0309 = false;

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met with the chairs of six committees that might have some hand in developing the clean energy bill. The question at issue was whether the bill should be pushed back in favor of a short-term focus on finance reform, jobs, and the deficit. Though John Kerry argued vigorously that the clean energy is a jobs bill that won't grow the deficit, it looks like he lost out and there will be some kind of standalone jobs bill in the interim.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is now advocating that any jobs bill include support for building retrofits to create jobs and reduce energy bills. What he's got in mind is a variation on his S. 1574: Clean Energy for Homes and Buildings Act of 2009. It's designed to overcome the main barrier to retrofits involving energy efficiency and small-scale renewables: financing. Most such investments are predictable and profitable over time, but they involve high upfront costs.

The "cash for caulkers" program the White House is floating would effectively dump a bunch of stimulus money on the retrofit market -- which is good! it needs money -- but Merkley has something more ambitious in mind. The idea would be to have the federal government offer loan guarantees or other credit assistance in order to leverage private investment far beyond what the feds can provide directly.

Here's the background, from Merkley's office:

In recent years, a number of innovative financing models have emerged to allow consumers access to loans that they can pay off using all or part of the energy bill savings they see as soon as the retrofit is completed. Some cities and states are encouraging property-tax-based financing, where the building owner gets a loan from the local government and repays it through a property tax surcharge. Some utilities (in some cases in partnership with cities or states) are offering on-bill-financing, where the loan is repaid through a surcharge on the utility bill. Some private companies can offer building owners performance savings contracts or, in the case of solar electric systems, leasing arrangements to that the cost is paid off in monthly payments, out of the savings on the utility bill.

The challenge with all these options is finding stable backing and/or collateral for the loans. That's what Merkley wants the jobs bill to do:

By offering direct lending, loan guarantees, or other credit support, the federal government can leverage private capital and state and local investment. If, for example, $2 billion were restored to the loan guarantee program, between $20 and $40 billion in financing could be provided, which would leverage even more in state, local, and private funds.

This is a way of using the power of the feds as lever rather than a hammer.

There are devils in the details. Thanks to the money already going to efficiency from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), potentially more if cash for caulkers is implemented, the existing retrofit supply pipeline is fairly jammed up. It's a relatively immature market, populated with mom-and-pop outfits and eager startups. There's only so much money it can effectively use.

And the money needs to get used immediately. For obvious reasons, Congressional Dems are very keen to creates jobs in the short-term, oh, say, before the 2010 midterms. Because of this time pressure much of the retrofit work -- the financing, the loans, the contracting, the billing -- will have to be done through utilities, which are already set up for this kind of thing and which reach virtually every American consumer. (Allowance value under the cap-and-trade system ought to be going to utility efficiency programs too, but that's a separate issue for now.)

Over time, as the market matures and scales up, it would be better to shift the resources from utilities to private market actors, which tend to be more innovative and entrepreneurial. There are many market failures in efficiency and retrofits waiting to be solved, and stable federal backing will accelerate the process of overcoming them.

We need to start thinking of efficiency, in all its forms, as a clean, cheap, renewable, domestic source of energy. If we want to rapidly scale it up -- and to hit ambitious emission targets, we'll have to -- it needs what other energy sources get: predictable, long-term government support. It's an oil well that will never run dry. In fact, efficiency-oil gets cheaper the more we drill. So drill, baby, drill!

---

One last thought: Merkley's idea would do real, positive work in the here-and-now. When voters see clean energy and efficiency working, they become more open to the grander initiatives: comprehensive climate bills and international treaties and such. Rather than forever raging against the dimming of those grand hopes, green groups should focus on making tangible, visible progress. Take the hill by inches. It wouldn't take much for one of these big green groups or coalitions -- Clean Energy Works? Apollo Alliance? 350? -- to make a celebrity out of Merkley's bill; make it a symbol of all the ways we can create jobs and save money by going green. In the end, caulk trumps rhetoric.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

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

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

For the past few weeks there has been the appearance of a flood of news about the Copenhagen climate talks and the clean energy bill in the U.S. Senate. Standing in that flood it's easy to get caught up in the atmospherics of frantic action and constant crisis. But step out for a while and it becomes clear just how much of the "news" consists of people who don't really know anything guessing: what things mean, who's thinking what, what the future holds.

Copenhagen failed and sprang back to life a half-dozen times and it hasn't even started yet. The clean energy bill was declared doomed over and over in the House, until it passed. The Senate bill was declared dead, totally impossible ... then, no, it would be done by Copenhagen ... then it was hopeless ... then there was a bipartisan road to passage ... then they were abandoning the carbon cap entirely ... then it was a bill in Spring ...

What all this "news" has in common is that it's based on Some Person Guessing. The closer one gets to the circus, the more one realizes that everyone is guessing, right up to negotiators and senators themselves. Everyone's trying to shape the future, not forecast it. Check out these results from National Journal's poll of political insiders:

Q: How likely is this Congress to enact cap-and-trade legislation to curb global warming?

Democrats (38 votes)

Very likely: 16 percent
Somewhat likely: 37 percent
Somewhat unlikely: 37 percent
Very unlikely: 11 percent

Republicans (40 votes)

Very likely: 3 percent
Somewhat likely: 10 percent
Somewhat unlikely: 35 percent
Very unlikely: 48 percent
Other responses (volunteered) 5 percent

These are insiders, close to the process itself, and their predictions line up rather eerily with their ideological predispositions. Kerry says the bill will pass in the Spring; Murkowski mutters that it won't happen this session. Which really knows? Neither. There is nobody who really knows. In an age of text, Twitter, and 24 hour media, there just aren't many secrets left, even for insiders. What secrets there are stay that way not by being concealed but by being difficult to pick out from the torrent of junk speculation that surrounds them. (The same is true of predictions about what effect such a massive piece of legislation would have. The accurate answer is that no one really knows.)

Anyway, these days everyone's a pundit, and pundits are always wrong:

[Philip Tetlock at Berkeley] studied pundits and discovered they were, to a rough approximation, always wrong when making predictions. He took 284 pundits and asked them questions about the future. Their performance was worse than chance. With three possible answers, they were right less than 33 per cent of the time. A monkey chucking darts would have done better. This is consoling. More consoling still is Tetlock's further finding that the more certain a pundit was, the more likely he was to be wrong. Their problem being that they couldn't self-correct, presumably because they'd invested so much of their personality and self-esteem in a specific view. (That makes me think of so many people, almost everybody, in fact.)

There's a whole political media ecosystem that feeds on everyone being a pundit. Those inside it have every incentive to exaggerate the importance of every day's comments and developments. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country ignores almost all of it. It's hard not to think sometimes that the world would be a better place if there were fewer people involved in the closed-loop meta-gossip circuit and more involved just putting their heads down and doing real work.

(Yes, yes, I know. Guilty as charged.)

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

"Never again."

Those ought to be the words coming from the White House right now on global warming. Never again can we tolerate a year like 2009, where attempts to cap carbon pollution experience such profound stagnation. Already this month President Obama has confirmed two painful truths. First: Congress will not complete work on a global warming bill in 2009. And second, the corollary blow: There will be no international climate deal in Denmark next month, dashing years of international hopes.

So now Obama's message ought to be "never again." The planet just can't endure another year of inaction. Obama should travel to the Copenhagen climate conference in December and guarantee dramatic action from the U.S. in 2010 even if it means blowing everything up in Congress and starting over. If a "cap and trade" bill won't fly in the Senate in 2010, then let the Environmental Protection Agency explore maximum-strength carbon regulations while, legislatively, we switch back to Obama's original presidential campaign plan: "cap and rebate."

Apologists, of course, are rushing to defend the president this week, explaining away the now-official climate failures of 2009. There was never enough time, they say, to fix in a few months all the global warming harm George Bush created in eight long years.

Maybe so. But we can't blame Bush forever. What's the plan for 2010? The only strategy the Democrats seem to have is borrowed from 2009: Get the Senate to finally pass the cap and trade bill. That would be the 1400-page bill narrowly approved by the House in June and loaded with subsidies for "clean coal" and likely big profits for Wall Street traders. It's been stagnating in the Senate for most of the autumn. Centrist Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia -- a vitally important vote -- all but condemned the bill this week in a press conference. What if the bill simply never passes? What will Obama take to the international treaty talks in Germany in June 2010or Mexico next December?

As long as Obama sticks to a principle of "never again," then Plan B should become relatively clear. Allow the EPA to move rapidly forward with its court-sanctioned ability to mandate carbon reductions across the economy under the Clean Air Act. This has always been the shotgun in the closet. No one really wants to proceed this way, unleashing messy regulations from a bureaucratic agency. But if the Senate won't act, then the EPA must.

But while that closet door is opening, we should all ask why the Senate has had trouble acting. The most obvious -- but least discussed -- problem is the concept of "cap and trade" itself. The bill treats our life-giving global atmosphere as if it were the property of private corporations. Up to 85 percent of the pollution permits under the bill would given away free to polluters in addition to loopholes that allow, for example, coal companies in America to avoid carbon reductions by paying faraway Zambian farmers to stop tilling their fields. Two prominent EPA attorneys -- both with extensive experience implementing federal pollution regulations -- have recently asserted that the cap and trade measure before Congress simply won't work and shouldn't be tried.

So what will work? For starters, we must rightly view the atmosphere as a shared resource, belonging to all people, not as a commodity owned by polluters. Obama had this idea in mind when he campaigned for president. His global warming proposal then would have required all polluters to pay for emissions permits. And at least 80 percent of the money raised would be rebated to American households. The rest -- over ten billion dollars per year -- would be invested in clean energy projects.

By rebating almost all the permit money to American households, this policy approach robs Republicans of their cherished ability to call a carbon cap a "carbon tax." And by making all polluters pay, the approach relieves many Democrats of their nervousness over corporate welfare. These features alone will provide afresh and popular boost to the climate debate should the cap and trade approach stall completely in 2010. A rebate approach -- especially one that gives all Americans an equal refund every month -- will also create the political space necessary for the kind of deep emissions cuts scientists say are needed to save the climate.

Unfortunately, after Obama's election, thanks to big lobbying from Big Oil and Big Coal, Congress went down the dubious trading path that now finds the clock running out in 2009. But if Obama wants to succeed as a politician and truly earn his Nobel Peace Prize, he'll embrace "never again" as a guide and prepare now to move the country toward his better, original instincts in 2010.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today confirmed that floor debate on a sweeping energy and global warming bill that will be sold to the American public in part as an economic stimulus measure will be held early next year.

“We’re going to try to do that sometime in the spring,” Reid told reporters when asked about the window for moving a climate bill onto the Senate floor.

So E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reports.   Ideally the debate would start by the end of February, so the Senate vote could be finished by early spring, as I recently wrote.   The bipartisan team of Senators crafting a bill with the White House plan on a blueprint by Copenhagen:

Kerry and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are taking the lead in writing the climate and energy bill with a goal of releasing a blueprint before U.N. global warming negotiations start Dec. 7 in Copenhagen.

The good news is that Reid sees this bill as part of the economic stimulus and jobs package the administration is putting together, which should increase the motivation to pass it:

“I think if we do it right, the energy bill, the climate bill can be very, very job productive,” Reid said.

Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) met with Reid and four other Democratic committee leaders yesterday to map out the legislative agenda for the rest of this year and early 2010….

“This is a jobs bill,” Kerry said. “This is without question a jobs bill. I’d say this is the biggest jobs bill staring us in the face, without any question, and we’ll prove that as we go down the road in the next days. So if you want to do a jobs bill, this is the bill to do. And I’d argue that with the president very, very forcefully.”

The bill certainly can drive early investment in clean energy through pollution reduction incentives, tax breaks, efficiency standards — and even through the carbon caps, as Nobelist Paul Krugman explained back in May:

Right now, the biggest problem facing our economy is plunging business investment. Businesses see no reason to invest, since they’re awash in excess capacity, thanks to the housing bust and weak consumer demand.

But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment — investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.

To put it another way, 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. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

This short-run economic boost isn’t the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly.

So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.

Precisely.

The bill should be written so that the cap-and-trade doesn’t start until 2013, well after the recession is over, but ideally with funding to accelerate clean technology into the marketplace frontloaded to start immediately, funding that can be deficit-neutral because it is offset by allowances that will be auctioned later.

Note:  I am proposing the cap start one year later than the current bills.  That’s because the bill is going to become law later than people thought, giving less time to set up all the rules for 2012 trading, and because of the recession, which has knocked CO2 levels down sharply (see “EIA stunner: By year’s end, we’ll be 8.5% below 2005 levels of CO2 — halfway to climate bill’s 2020 target“).  That means 2012 was probably going to have an over-allocation of allowances anyway.  Putting the start of the cap off one year therefore won’t actually reduce the amount of emissions reductions the bill achieves — quite the reverse, it’ll probably reduce the early surplus of allowances distributed.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

WASHINGTON - Two senators unveiled legislation Monday to double U.S. nuclear energy output in 20 years and foster clean energy options with "mini-Manhattan Projects" named for the original U.S. atomic bomb push.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), noting they cannot support the cap-and-trade climate bill now churning through the Senate, said their plan could cost $20 billion over 10 years.  It would include $100 billion for carbon-free electricity loan guarantees, expected to chiefly benefit the U.S. nuclear industry.

It would also offer $750 million per year for 10 years to fund carbon-capture-and-storage technology -- sometimes known as "clean coal" -- as well as biofuels made from non-food crops, advanced batteries for electric cars and trucks, solar power, and recycling of used nuclear fuel.

The senators dubbed those initiatives "mini-Manhattan projects," a reference to the World War II-era effort to develop the atomic bomb.

The bill also includes $100 million per year for 10 years to train and educate nuclear engineers, operators, and related skilled workers, at a time when U.S. unemployment is soaring at 10.2 percent, a 26-year high.

Alexander, a fervent foe of White House-backed cap-and-trade legislation, noted that boosting nuclear energy enjoys the support of members of both major U.S. parties as well as President Barack Obama's administration.

Webb, who said he could not vote for the cap-and-trade bill "in its current form," said increasing U.S. nuclear capability was among "things we know we can do" to reduce carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

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

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate will act in early 2010 on legislation to battle climate change, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday, ending hopes of a breakthrough by next month's global talks.

"We are going to try to do that sometime in the spring," Reid told reporters, with a White House-backed push to remake U.S. health care still dominating the Senate agenda just weeks before the congressional session ends.

The decision confirms that the U.S. Congress will not adopt legislation to combat climate change before the Dec. 7-18 global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen.

It also pushes what is likely to be a bitter debate to a midterm-election year, potentially making it harder to corral some of the swing-vote senators needed to ensure passage of the bill.

The Grassley isn't greener

Meanwhile, a key U.S. senator on Tuesday rejected any attempt to pin a lack of breakthroughs at next month's global climate change talks in Denmark on a lack of U.S. leadership on the issue.

"You mean it's not the failure of the People's Assembly in China or the Parliament of India to pass laws cutting down on CO2, it's only America's fault, blame America first?" said Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, criticized unnamed countries that "accept our leadership on CO2, but ignore our leadership on Iran, our leadership on North Korea, ignore our leadership on Afghanistan."

"You know, you can't have it both ways. Other countries can't have it both ways," he said in a regular conference call with media from his home state of Iowa, according to a transcript of the discussion.

Grassley also said he "would not be satisfied" with any climate-change agreement that treats the United States differently from China or India.

"China's putting more CO2 into the air, and I wouldn't be satisfied if China's not treated like the United States because what good does it do for the United States to clean up CO2? It's not going to make an impact unless China and India [are] involved as well," he said.

Grassley also had tough words for lawmakers and President Barack Obama who have called for the U.S. Congress to pass sweeping legislation to battle climate change in order to build momentum ahead of the Dec. 7-18 global talks.

"If the rest of the world doesn't follow along, then we're going to ruin our economy," he said. "Maybe they don't care."

At the same time, he said, "there seems to be no feeling that anything solid's going to come out of Copenhagen, except a political statement" broadly recommitting to a "worldwide agreement" on cutting carbon emissions.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

George Voinovich

At a hearing on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Nov. 3, Sen. George Voinovich was the only Republican to show up (for a whole 15 minutes!). He explained that Republicans were boycotting the proceedings because they wanted to wait until the EPA completed a more thorough economic analysis of the bill.  He insisted that he did “want to work on a bipartisan basis” and that requesting further EPA analysis was “not a stalling tactic.”

Voinovich has been arguing for further economic analysis ever since the House passed its version of a climate bill, Waxman-Markey, this summer.  He made the point in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson [PDF] in July. When the Kerry-Boxer bill was unveiled in late September, he called for “time [to be] allowed for a thorough vetting of what has been proposed.”  And in late October, in remarks to the Environment and Public Works Committee [PDF], Voinovich stressed the importance of dealing with climate change, but again argued that more in-depth economic analysis was essential: “Climate change is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention. I acknowledge [the] commitment to timely legislation, but the abbreviated process by which this legislation is moving is not conducive to thoughtful, bipartisan climate change legislation.” He ended his statement by warning against attempting “to jam down this legislation” through the Senate: “Wouldn’t it be smarter to take our time and do it right?”

The senator also has concerns about particular provisions in the bill.  “One of my problems with this legislation is that the caps are unrealistic in terms of the availability of technology,” he said. And Voinovich argues that forced emissions reductions would result in significant transfers of wealth from fossil fuel-dependent regions of the country to areas that are less reliant on coal: “California is going to make out like a bandit with this legislation. To jam this thing through here is not going to be good and America is going to be very, very upset about it.”

——-

Here’s more on Voinovich and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on July 30, 2009:

Sen. George Voinovich has acknowledged the problem of global warming, but wants to take a cautious approach in addressing it. He sponsored a weak climate bill last year that never got any traction.

He is retiring when his term ends in 2010, so he has leeway to support climate legislation without fear of political repercussion.

At the same time, Voinovich is a big supporter of fossil fuels.  Last year, he told Grist that the U.S. should “get every drop” of oil out of U.S. soil.

Voinovich doesn’t like the climate bill that passed the House in June. “In my view, the Waxman-Markey bill fails on all accounts,” he said at a panel on the future of coal that he hosted with Democratic Sen. Tom Carper (Del.).

“You’ve got a bill that is 1,200 pages, and there is just a lot of crap in there,” he said. (Actually the final version came in at more than 1,400 pages.) He criticized the near-term emission-reduction targets in the bill, saying that 17 percent by 2020 is “too high for us.” He’s also worried that the bill would allow carbon offsets to be purchased from foreign sources, arguing that could result in more U.S. cash going to China. “With modest $15 per ton, we could send $15 billion to China,” he said.

He stalled confirmation of the EPA’s deputy administrator while demanding that the agency provide a new analysis of the House climate bill that was more to his liking.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Voinovich has outlined his own priorities for a climate bill, including a cost-containment mechanism (also known as a “safety valve” or “off-ramp”), a requirement for international action, and major funding for carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology.

He seems willing to work on passing a climate bill this year. “There is a lot of work yet to be done; but from my perspective, it’s still open,” Voinovich said. “I’m leaving the Senate at the end of next year and I think there is the possibility in getting something done that’s meaningful.”

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:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

In his latest column, Bill McKibben lays a wide range of sins at the feet of Barack Obama, accusing him of "fibbing and spinning" on climate change. He says Obama is "not particularly focused" on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate). He says that by putting health care ahead of climate change, Obama "guarantee[d] that health care would occupy most of the year." He says that by focusing on green jobs and energy security rather than climate change, Obama has "left the door open for climate deniers to have a field day." Obama's administration is "spinning" by focusing on the still-common 450 ppm number for atmospheric CO2 rather than the 350 ppm favored by some activists and scientists.

I could not be more sincere when I say that I wish Obama were responsible for health care reform dragging on, for climate deniers and delayers, for the lack of ambition U.S. negotiators can promise the international community. If these things were a matter of Obama simply not trying hard enough, perhaps he could be persuaded to try harder. He's a reasonable guy!

Alas, despite the far-reaching powers people tend to ascribe to the U.S. presidency in general and Obama specifically, it seems to me the real culprit is -- yes, I'm going to say the same thing again, I'm boring! -- the U.S. Senate.

Bill says Obama is using the Senate like Bush used China, as an excuse for delay. The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush's control and the Senate is out of Obama's. But it's inapt in that there's plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn't; there's plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he's doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months has been amazing -- new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi-lateral international climate diplomacy ... the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do -- more than any president has ever done.

Ultimately, then, Bill's beef comes down to Obama's supposed refusal to "push the Senate as hard as [he] possibly can." Tellingly, there are no details offered on what this pushing might involve, just some handwaving at "spending political capital."

But how to push the Senate? That's the most important question! Surely it deserves a little more attention.

Bill Clinton tried getting out ahead of Congress to prod it to action. He sent Gore to Kyoto promising ambitious action on climate. He handed Congress a health care reform bill that he (or rather his wife) had hashed out behind closed doors in the White House, ready to go.

Conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to his agenda; they rejected the Kyoto treaty; they picked at the health bill and were happy to let it die.

Obama has been trying the opposite strategy. He is very carefully instructing his international negotiators not to promise anything that the Senate hasn't already signed on to. (That means waiting for the Senate to pass a bill.) On both health care and clean energy, he has laid out a set of broad principles and let members of Congress work out their own bills, cheerleading occasionally from the sidelines. On health care, the progress has been impossibly slow, dragging out longer than anyone not totally cynical about the Senate could have predicted. But it's been progress. On clean energy, the strategy worked like a charm with the House clean energy bill. Obama mostly let Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) handle it, with some crucial behind-the-scenes help. The administration strongly endorsed the bill when it passed. A roughly similar bill got to the Senate and raced through Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) progressive Environment and Public Works Committee.

And ... conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to Obama's agenda; they're trash-talking Copenhagen; they're picking at the clean energy bill and are happy to let it die. (See: Jim Webb.)

That's two very different executive strategies that ran into similar wankery from conservative Senate Dems. Maybe our conclusion should be that the problem is conservative Senate Dems. Many such Dems come from states that voted for McCain and/or Bush. Obama has no leverage over them; support from Obama isn't important or necessarily helpful for their electoral prospects. Unless they feel constrained by party discipline like their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or God forbid feel the pull of conscience, they have no incentive to work to pass the progressive agenda Obama campaigned on. Nor do they have reason to accept any treaty his administration signs that goes beyond what they've already agreed to. Dems desperately need their votes, but they don't desperately need other Dems, and there's just very little in Obama's arsenal with which to "push" them. The dysfunction of the Senate is structural; it's not in Obama's power to change, no matter how much he tries, no matter how much capital he spends.

The difference between Clinton's flamboyant rhetorical pushing and Obama's relatively laid-back style is this: Obama's still has a chance to work. However frustrating it may be to activists who want bigger words, bolder promises, and faster action, the fact remains that the Dems are within reach of passing a health care reform bill and have at least laid out a path to passing a clean energy bill and ratifying a binding international climate treaty in 2010. It's too early to deem Obama's leadership a failure.

Yes: political realities can be changed. The kind of broad grassroots movement that Bill McKibben himself has been so instrumental in creating can shift the tectonic plates. But a crucial step in that process is to accurately identify what and who is blocking progress. It's not Obama who deserves the ire of the 350 army. It's Max Baucus (D-Mont.). It's Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). It's Jim Webb (D-Vir.). It's Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). It's the filibuster! These targets are harder to reach and in many ways less satisfying to battle, but they are the real locus of delay and inaction.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Al FrankenSen. Al Franken wrote the following letter to a Grist reader in early November, expressing support for “comprehensive energy legislation” and a “national energy plan that keeps our country moving down a path to a homegrown economy with more jobs, more innovation, and more opportunities for investment.”

The senator has been concerned about the possible loss of manufacturing jobs to countries without emission-reduction plans (e.g. China and India), and in August he joined with nine other Democrats in writing a letter to President Obama calling for a climate bill to include tariffs on goods from countries without binding emission targets. Franken continues to express that concern in this letter to a constituent:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about energy and climate change legislation.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me on this important issue for Minnesota and the nation.

One of the reasons I support comprehensive energy legislation is that Minnesota is uniquely positioned to become a global leader in clean energy production.  Whether it’s harnessing the wind in Pipestone, growing the next generation of bio-fuels in Willmar, or tapping into geothermal energy in Appleton, Minnesota is ready to lead.

We have the potential to foster a new industrial revolution—a 21st century economy built on changing the way the world makes and uses energy.  Right now, China and Germany are winning the race to develop solar and wind power, but together we can change this.  Minnesotans can ensure that the world’s energy future is found in the farms and rural communities of Benson and Bemidji, not the factories of Beijing and Berlin.  We need a national energy plan that keeps our country moving down a path to a homegrown economy with more jobs, more innovation, and more opportunities for investment.

Minnesota is in a position to benefit from the national energy legislation that Congress is now considering.  But it’s critical that we get the details right.  On August 6, 2009, I sent a letter to President Obama urging that any national climate change program include incentives to force China and India to reduce their emissions.  These incentives will ensure environmental integrity and economic security here at home.  Additionally, I am working to secure new economic opportunities for Minnesota farmers in the emerging market for carbon offsets.

Over the next few months, as the Senate completes work on its energy plan, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that Minnesota is best positioned to reap the benefits of the new energy economy and that any legislation does not put an undue burden on consumers like you.

Track the climate debate and take actionThank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Al Franken
United States Senator

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Dick Durbin

In this letter to Grist reader and Illinois constituent Kevin Wolz, Sen. Dick Durbin signals strong support for the Kerry-Boxer climate bill:

Dear Mr. Wolz,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the creation of a national “cap-and-trade” program to address global warming. I appreciate hearing from you.
 
Global warming is one of the most significant environmental crises we face. Most scientists believe that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the earth’s temperature by as much as three to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
 
I believe Congress needs to take action to address global warming. Science has shown that we can’t afford to wait any longer. If we tackle the sources of carbon pollution and take steps to reduce the impacts of global warming, we can protect our environmental future while expanding our economy. However, if we choose to ignore global warming and its consequences, we are placing our planet and our future in grave danger and could face large-scale economic consequences that threaten our national security.
 
Senator Boxer of California has introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) to help our nation take meaningful steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming. It would establish a national cap-and-trade system and would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 20 percent below the 2005 level by 2020, with a goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.
 
In addition, S. 1733 would make a significant investment in energy efficiency and the development of clean, domestic energy sources. By supporting energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, and other clean energy technologies, this legislation will move our nation toward energy independence, strengthen our national security, and protect our environment. An investment in clean energy will also mean the creation of a wide range of new jobs here in the United States, jobs which cannot be outsourced.

Your voice is a valuable part of this discussion. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate continues to debate the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Track the climate debate and take action

Durbin has long fought for action on climate change. In 2007, he introduced legislation that would require a “National Intelligence Estimate” assessing the national security implications of climate change. In 2006, Durbin joined 39 other senators in writing a letter to then-President Bush calling for “a national program of mandatory limits on global warming pollution that slows, stops, and reverses emissions.” And in 2003, he sponsored an amendment that would have required cars and SUVs to get 40 miles per gallon by 2015.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation? Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

[See update at bottom.]

The big news this weekend was that a coalition of world leaders made it official: there will be no full-fledged, legally binding agreement out of the Copenhagen climate talks. Instead there will be a "politically binding" agreement, pledging to work out a full agreement in 2010 -- "one agreement, two steps." This was Denmark PM (and Copenhagen host) Lars Lokke Rasmussen's way of salvaging a half-win from what was threatening to be a total loss.

Of course opponents of climate action are portraying it as a disaster that augers the death of UNFCCC process; they do that with every setback or delay. Climate activists don't seem to have decided quite yet what to think about it. My take: it's not as bad as it looks. I'd endorse some mix of Broder, Romm, and Schmidt.

NYT's John Broder is right about the main constraint here. Well, almost right. He says "Congress," but the real culprit is the Senate. That dysfunctional body is taking its sweet, preening time as always, letting health care reform drag on into winter and now, in a fit of cluelessness, delaying a deficit-neutral, job-creating clean energy bill to ... focus on jobs and the deficit. Behind the scenes, that bill is getting larded up with enough retrograde energy pork to secure precious conservative votes. Best case scenario, it limps through the Senate, gets a little remediation in conference committee, and passes in April or May. Beyond then, midterm politics take over and reasonable legislating becomes impossible.

This absurdly protracted process is playing out as dozens of countries hang out, tapping their feet, looking at their watches, flipping idly through waiting-room magazines. Concerted international action can't get started without the U.S., and the U.S. can't get started without the Senate -- the Obama administration won't promise anything to which the Senate hasn't committed. So the world waits for the Senate, observing its legislative process with a mix of bewilderment, anxiety, and disdain.

Joe Romm points out that the delay offers some needed breathing room. The sense that the world is waiting will increase pressure on the Senate to pass a bill (there's pressure from Brazil and France already). Conversely, legislation from the U.S. would increase pressure on China and India to step up to the plate with targets and timetables.

NRDC's Jake Schmidt notes that the extra time will be beneficial if a) enough details are settled in Copenhagen and b) world leaders focus on ironing out a final agreement in the intervening months. That's a big if.

Nonetheless, if the world's nations had headed into Copenhagen expecting a legally binding treaty complete with targets and timetables, the result would have been disappointment, acrimony, and worst of all, wasted time. By taking some of the pressure off Copenhagen, the two-steps agreement has avoided disaster and maintained momentum. It's also given the Obama administration time to engage in more climate diplomacy. Now if something could just be done about the Senate ...

UPDATE: I'm hearing from people close to the international process that Rasmussen's deal might not be as official as it's been made to seem by the U.S. media. Apparently Denmark and the U.S. sprang this on their Asian partners and there's been some pushback, from them and from small island states and African nations.

To boot, Rasmussen's agreement seems like a variation on the plan Yvo de Boer has been fronting for a while -- only without de Boer's hard deadlines, thus letting developed countries off the hook.

Anyway, there's a lot more to this story than is reflected in most media reports. We'll bring you updates as events unfold.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) knows that his state’s trees are being ravaged by warming-driven pests now and that Montana faces 175% to 400% increase in wildfire burn area if we don’t reverse course sharply and soon on greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s why he supports strong climate action and said last week, “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation.”

Bizarrely, though, his Finance Committee will hold an utterly missable hearing today on the “future of jobs” under clean energy legislation that has a witness list stacked with fossil-fuel-industry-funded polluters and deniers.  Wonk Room has the story, excerpted below:

Appearing before the committee are four industry or conservative lobbyists and one coal-industry union lobbyist, Abraham Breehey. The only economist to testify will be Margo Thorning, a lobbyist for the anti-tax American Council on Capital Formation. Also testifying is Carol Berrigan, a nuclear industry representative, Van Ton-Quinlivan of Pacific Gas & Electric, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Kenneth Green.

Green regularly spouts anti-scientific nonsense like, “We’re back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….  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).  Last month, Green weirdly compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals.

One could point out that Berrigan’s organization, the Nuclear Energy Institute, is not satisfied that clean energy legislation will spur nuclear energy through free-market competition, but is demanding massive subsidies and tax breaks as well.

One could point out that ACCF and AEI have received millions of dollars in funding from Exxon Mobil alone, or that Thorning refuses to reveal her methodology and Green has tried to buy climate scientists for $10,000 a pop.

Instead, let’s just note that tomorrow’s testimony will likely rehash the talking points that these witnesses have delivered time and again for the past ten years. Other than Ton-Quinlivan, who is appearing for the first time before Congress, the witnesses are regulars on the Hill, testifying a combined 20 times on climate and energy policy since 2002. Thorning has been the most frequent guest over the years, and this will be Green’s fifth time testifying since June.

Margo Thorning:

Kenneth P. Green

Carol Berrigan:

Abraham Breehey

If the Finance Committee is really trying to learn something new about whether reforming our pollution-based energy infrastructure would create new jobs, one would think they could have put a little more effort in witness selection.

Precisely.

Related Posts:

Related Links:

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

In other UK news: “Rain like this happens once every 1,000 years”

Richard Lugar

“I don’t see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support,” Sen. Richard Lugar said on Nov. 10, dashing any hopes that he might get behind some version of the Kerry-Boxer legislation that’s moving through the Senate.  “We really have to start from scratch again,” he continued. 

Lugar has been leaning this way for some time. The first week of November, he joined with other Republicans in demanding a more in-depth EPA analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill; the Republicans insist they need more info on the bill’s potential economic impacts, while Democrats accuse them of trying to stall the process. 

In September, Lugar noted the dangers posed by climate change and said the U.S. must reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but criticized the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed in House in June.  “To give the impression that somehow the Senate must pass a bill comparable to the House, or anything in that ballpark, seems to me is not a very good idea and is one I’m likely to oppose,” the senator said.  Lugar argued that the bill would penalize coal-dependant states like Indiana, which gets more than 90 percent of its electricity from coal.

Asked what kind of climate bill he could support, Lugar responded, “I frankly don’t know, although I’m deeply interested in this.” But he has indicated that he would prefer to focus on energy efficiency and investment in renewables rather than cap-and-trade.  “The real way of approaching this is through conservation, through building modification, through the change in how electricity is delivered,” he said. “Leaving aside cap-and-trade and some very large federal legislation which, in my judgment, is not going to make much difference in CO2 for 20 years, we can make a difference now.”

——-

Here’s more on Lugar and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on August 24, 2009:

In 2006, Sen. Richard Lugar’s Indiana tree farm purchased credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a good indication that he realizes federal climate policy is coming down the pike. He voted for the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003 and 2005, but voted against cloture on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act last year.  This year, he’s a key swing vote on climate legislation.

As the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar has been outspoken about the need for the U.S. to become more energy independent and address climate change.

“We should recognize that energy issues are at the core of most major foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues today. Technological breakthroughs that expand clean energy supplies for billions of people worldwide will be necessary for sustained economic growth,” Lugar said at a January hearing on international climate challenges. “In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy that are focused on these technological advancements, we will be risking multiple hazards for our country that could constrain living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to economic, political, and environmental disasters with an almost existential impact.”

“The United States should recognize that steps to address climate change involve economic opportunities, not just constraints,” he continued.

But Lugar has been adamant that any climate strategy should be part of a global effort, and big developing countries like China and India should be compelled to participate.

Track the debate and take action >>>

He has also expressed concern about the transparency and enforcement of cap-and-trade, as well as its potential costs for coal-dependent states like Indiana. And he wants biofuels and adaptation efforts to play a larger role in climate policy.

Lugar has downplayed the prospects of passing a climate bill in the Senate in 2009. Approving a plan to reduce emissions is “a tough sell to people who are in a recession and whose light bills are going up,” Lugar said in June. “The votes just haven’t been there, and I’m not sure they are now.”

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:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Mark Warner

Sen. Mark Warner recognizes the need to take action on climate change, but wants to ensure that legislation will not negatively impact the economy.

Warner seems a safe bet to support the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. In recent months, he has underlined the severity of the climate crisis and the steps necessary to solve it. Speaking to the National Energy Summit and International Dialogue in September, Warner strongly emphasized the need to take immediate action: “The idea that we’re going to, for one more year, delay trying to take action on this critically important issue around energy would be a competitive, financial and potentially environmental disaster.” Soon thereafter, he stood with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as they unveiled their climate bill, signaling his support for the legislation..

As Warner told Grist during his 2008 Senate campaign, he favors a wide-ranging approach to energy issues: support for renewables and next-gen hybrids, much higher fuel-efficiency standards, a big boost for energy R&D, government-funded research into carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology, "a fresh look at nuclear," and expansion of domestic oil and gas production.

In this letter sent to a Grist reader in early November, Warner sounds generally supportive of climate legislation, but again emphasizes the importance of protecting the economy in the midst of the current downturn:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about global warming and related legislation.  I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

In order to best protect America's citizens and environment, I believe that we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that both reduces our emissions and utilizes alternative sources of energy.  Doing so would not only help to preserve the environment, but would also create green jobs and ultimately lower domestic energy costs.  Any discussion of our national energy policy must also consider the international scope of this challenge as individual nations confront problems such as the finite supply of fossil fuels, overhauling outdated energy infrastructures, and many other important environmental challenges.

Members of the relevant Congressional committees are currently working on legislation that would address climate change on a national level, and I look forward to participating in this debate during the 111th Congress.  Though the science surrounding this issue supports the need for dramatic changes in policy, any comprehensive legislation to address climate change must balance this interest with the need to keep our economy viable during this challenging time.

Thank you again for your input on global warming.  Please be assured that I will continue to monitor related legislation and will consider your views as the Senate debates and votes on relevant legislation.  I very much look forward to serving the Commonwealth during the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

In a 2008 campaign video, Warner lays out his plans for addressing energy concerns and climate change:

Track the climate debate and take action

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

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

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Roger Wicker

Sen. Roger Wicker plans to oppose the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.  In this letter to a constituent, he writes, “I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.” Wicker calls for more offshore drilling and nuclear power to boost energy supplies.

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation’s energy policy.  I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this issue.

It remains important that Congress work to ensure that the U.S. has an ample supply of cheap, abundant energy. While we need to continue developing alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass, the cornerstone of any new proposal must include exploration of our offshore resources and the expansion of nuclear power.

The U.S. Interior Department estimates there are 19 billion barrels of oil currently off-limits to production in our nation’s deep waters.  This equals the amount of oil we have imported from Persian Gulf countries over the last 15 years.  We should be able to develop our own oil resources. Last fall, Congress removed a decades-old ban on offshore oil and gas drilling and authorized the exploration of oil shale.  However, the Obama Administration moved quickly to put these projects on hold, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar delayed action on increased drilling off America’s coasts.

Currently, Congress is considering two bills relating to the reduction of carbon emissions. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the America Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) on May 15, 2009. On June 26, the House narrowly passed the legislation by a vote of 219 to 212. The Senate has yet to consider this legislation. In the Senate, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) on September 30, 2009.  Both of these bills require substantial reductions on carbon emissions, with the American consumer ultimately bearing the costs. I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.

Knowing of your interest in the subject, I have attached a column I recently wrote addressing these issues.  Be assured I will continue to work for a comprehensive solution and will keep your comments in mind as Congress considers legislation affecting our nation’s energy policy.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

Track the climate debate and take actionWith best wishes,

Sincerely yours,

Roger F.Wicker
U.S. Senate

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

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

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Carl Levin

Sen. Carl Levin is certainly concerned about climate change, but it’s unclear whether he will support the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. In this letter sent to a constituent in early November 2009, the senator stresses that other nations must commit to binding greenhouse-gas limits. He calls for a climate bill that will account for regional differences in the U.S., impose tariffs on goods from countries that haven’t committed to action, and preclude states from setting their own, tougher standards for automobile emissions (California, he’s talking to you): 

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activity is causing it. As a result, we need to act with urgency to reduce the levels of global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent catastrophic impacts from occurring. During this century, scientists predict average temperatures could increase between 2 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Even small changes in average temperature could lead to extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts and flooding. Portions of countries and entire islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could significantly decline and water shortages could occur. Over time, the impacts of climate change also could threaten our national security.

I believe the best way to address global warming is through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including China and India. It is imperative we find a way to bring them and other large emitters into a binding agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not get these countries on board, what we do in the United States will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse gas emissions and could lead to even more U.S.-based companies moving overseas.

While addressing global climate change presents a daunting challenge, it also provides economic opportunities. A number of studies suggest investment in clean energy could generate significant new employment opportunities. A June 2009 report released by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that between 1998 and 2007, jobs in clean energy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent. In Michigan, clean energy jobs grew by 10.7 percent over the same period. By investing in research and development and advanced technologies, we can generate good paying jobs in the manufacturing and technology sectors.

On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES, H.R.2454) by a vote of 219 to 212. This legislation would establish a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and includes a number of energy-related provisions, such as renewable electricity standards and energy efficiency requirements. On September 30, 2009, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733). This bill is similar to the House bill in that it sets up a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and provides incentives for the development of clean energy technologies. On November 5, 2009, this bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Senate bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Senate bill would result in a cost impact of approximately $100 per household, averaged over the 2010 to 2050 time period. Before climate legislation is debated by the full Senate, S. 1733 will be merged with legislation authored by four other Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources; Agriculture; Finance; and Foreign Relations.

Several factors need to be taken into account as the Senate works to address climate change and our national energy policy. In my view, any climate legislation that is enacted must not only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but also ensure the protection of consumers and workers, which requires taking into account regional differences that exist in the United States. I will work to ensure that climate legislation does not unfairly impact American manufacturing and jobs, especially with regard to our international competitiveness. It also is vital to include a border provision to make sure other countries do not gain a competitive advantage by failing to address the issue. Because climate change is a global challenge, legislation should establish a single, national standard that precludes states from setting their own standards, particularly for mobile sources.

Finally, the legislation should include targets and timetables that also are technologically achievable. On August 6, 2009, I sent a letter, along with several other Senators, to the President outlining many of these concerns.

As the Senate continues to craft climate change and energy legislation, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Do you know what your own senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Here’s more on Levin and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 21 July 2009:

Carl Levin is a Midwest, industrial-state Democrat with concerns about the economic impacts of climate legislation, but he thinks something needs to be done about global warming.

“Global climate change is occurring and swift action is needed to protect our planet for future generations,” he says on his Senate website.

Levin wants climate legislation to include funding for advanced auto technologies like hybrids and hydrogen vehicles and advanced biofuels—no surprise, as he represents Michigan. The House climate and energy bill dedicates $20 billion to electric vehicles and other advanced automotive technologies, thanks to the work of fellow Michigan Democrat John Dingell. It’s unclear whether those concessions will be enough for Levin.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Last year, Levin voted to bring the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to a floor vote, but also signed a letter from 10 swing-vote Democrats saying he would have opposed final passage of the bill.

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:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Contrary to reports from many in the media, the prospects for a climate bill are as good as ever now that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has finished its work.  E&E News makes that clear in a series of interviews with key Senate swing votes,"Senate moderates see an opening now that EPW gridlock is history" (subs. req’d):

Baucus insisted that the bill would cross the finish line, which would require both Senate passage and a successful conference with the House. “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s going to be this year. Probably next year.”

As I had noted last week, while the media was quick to jump over some seemingly negative statements from the Montana Senator, in fact it was clear from his words that Baucus will be voting for the final bill.

While many key moderates made clear they would not vote for the Boxer-Kerry bill that EPW voted out of Committee yesterday, everyone realizes that the process is going to start anew with Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman, who “will be working closely with the White House” to develop a separate bipartisan climate bill that can get 60 votes.

And contrary to some reporting, the EPW process has not undermined prospects for the new bipartisan bill:

Other moderate senators also said they would not reject voting for a climate and energy bill now that it is freed of the EPW Committee’s partisan gridlock.

“I presume that a lot is going to happen before then,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

“It’s not the end of the process,” added Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “That’s just the beginning of the process. So there’s lots of time and lots of opportunity for everybody to engage.”

So Boxer delivered on her promise back in early February, as Greenwire reported (see “Breaking: Sen. Boxer makes clear U.S. won’t pass a climate bill this year“):

“Copenhagen is December,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told reporters. “That’s why I said we’ll have a bill out of this committee by then.”

Ideally, Kerry and Graham and Leiberman and the White House will flesh out the key details of the new bill by Copenhagen, ultimately leading to a successful Senate floor vote in February, and a bill on the president’s desk sometime in April.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Arlen Specter

Sen. Arlen Specter is considered a fence sitter on climate legislation, though on Nov. 5 he sided with all but one of the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee in voting to move forward with the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. 

As Darren Samuelsohn of Greenwire reported:

Specter bemoaned his inability to offer amendments addressing his home state’s steel, coal and refining industries. But he said it was more important to pass the climate bill out of committee now, given the international spotlight on the Obama administration’s role during a major U.N. conference Dec. 7-18 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“Copenhagen is very important symbolically,” Specter said. “And Copenhagen would have been more impressed had we moved further. But Copenhagen will be impressed at least that we have the resoluteness to move ahead now.”

Here’s more on Specter and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 20 July 2009:

Specter’s role as a swing voter on climate legislation didn’t change when he made his surprise switch to the Democratic Party in April. While he has spoken in favor of acting on climate, he has opposed measures he thinks are too strong.

In 2007, he introduced a modest climate bill with New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman.  In 2008, he voted against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, arguing that it was too stringent.  This year, he was one of 66 senators who rejected the option of using the budget reconciliation process to pass a climate bill.

“I think we ought to have a bill which is as aggressive as possible, subject to two criteria,” Specter told Grist in April. “One is that it has a realistic chance of passage, and second that it establishes goals which are within current technical know-how.”

Track the debate and take action >>>

Speaking at a town hall meeting at Drexel University in April, he said, “I believe that it is more effective to choose something which can be legislated at the present time, which is within the reach of our current technologies ... The standards of the Lieberman-Warner go beyond the current technology.” (Note that the Lieberman-Warner bill was weaker than the Waxman-Markey bill that the House passed in June.)

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:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Dianne FeinsteinSen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to vote in favor of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.  In a November 2009 letter to a Grist reader, she doesn’t explicitly endorse the bill, but she does say it “represents an important step”:

Dear [Constituent]:

Thank you for writing to express your views about the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.” I share your support for taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Climate change has already begun to change the world as we know it. Eight of the Earth’s nine warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and these rising temperatures are shrinking snow packs and glaciers, changing patterns of drought and flooding, and increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires. I agree that the United States must take meaningful action to prevent catastrophic climate change and mitigate its impact. The urgency is unmistakable.

On September 30, 2009, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” (S. 1733), which sets a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, authorizes funding for domestic and international climate adaptation efforts, and invests in the infrastructure and workforce necessary to make a permanent shift toward low-carbon, renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. This comprehensive climate bill represents an important step toward achieving meaningful greenhouse gas reductions, mitigating the public health and environmental impacts of climate change, increasing our energy security, and achieving long-term economic growth.

Please know that I remain committed to working to advance measures that address climate change, create jobs and increase our energy independence. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should S. 1733, or similar climate legislation, be considered by the full Senate in the 111th Congress.

Again, thank you for writing. If you have further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.Track the climate debate and take action

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

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

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring