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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

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

Today, Graham made a deal all but inevitable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted at OurFuture.org.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

The greenosphere is all abuzz with the news that a few Republican Senators, led by Lindsey Graham (S.C.), have signaled that they're open to coming around on the climate bill if certain conditions are met. In classic form, Senate Dems have responded by rushing to signal they they are willing -- eager, even! -- to give these Republicans whatever they want.

This isn't actually huge news. Graham and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have been fence-sitters for a while, and it's never been a mystery what could bring them over. Graham's public statements just mark the beginning of the bargaining process. Anyway, Bill Scher and Brad Plumer have covered this pretty well. I'd just add two things.

First, if Dems are going to compromise, they should secure real commitments in return.

Senate Dems (Barbara Boxer in particular) are notorious for telling their interlocutors that they can have whatever concession they are seeking -- without getting, in exchange, any firm commitment to support the resulting bill. What happens then is that said interlocutors take what they got, put it in the bank, and immediately resume badmouthing the bill and asking for more.

This is in sharp contrast to Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) in the House, who may have given all sorts of goodies to Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), but by God got their yea votes in return. In fact, Boucher and Peterson did yeomen's work whipping for the bill on the floor.

If Graham, McCain, et al want their nukes and their offshore drilling, John Kerry (D-Mass.) should get their solemn pledge that they will support the bill in the face of what is sure to be immense pressure from their base to bail. Vocal, public support from the likes of Graham and McCain could shift the debate in a huge way and possibly bring several more Republicans along.

Secondly, Dems should compromise with money, not architecture.

There are at least five Senate Dems that are certain no votes on the climate bill. That means you need at least five Republican yeas. To get them, there are going to have to be provisions for nuclear power and offshore drilling. There's no getting around it. But I don't think things are so bleak for those who oppose both those purported solutions to our energy troubles. As long as the compromises do not mandate nukes and drilling, or write them into the architecture of the bill, things should turn out all right.

On offshore drilling, the politics are trending toward opening up new areas for leasing. Once the price of oil and gasoline rises high enough, political pressure will be irresistible. Might as well use it as a bargaining chip while there's still something to get in exchange. As Joe Romm has argued, the fact is that even if the federal and state moratoria on drilling were lifted, there's not a lot of reasons to think oil companies will want to lease these areas. They're not as ignorant on this subject as the GOP and most of the public -- they know these areas represent huge investments of time and money for not much payoff. That's why there are already tons of available leases in the Gulf going unexploited.

So on offshore drilling, you have the makings of what could look like a huge concession from Dems, but could turn out to have fairly modest real-world consequences.

Nuclear has always been a strange subject. Its backers say, "nuclear can work, once we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues." Its opponents say, "nuclear can work, but only if we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues." The differences between them aren't that large. It's just that nuke proponents think the pesky problems can be solved, and nuclear opponents don't.

So the key on a nuclear compromise is not to mess with the basic architecture of the bill. Specifically, Dems should resist efforts to let new nuclear plants qualify as satisfying the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

They could increase loan guarantees and smooth out regulatory issues around siting and permitting. They could establish some sort of expert panel to figure out a waste solution. They could even make nukes eligible for the same tax credits and subsidies offered to renewables. What these compromises have in common is that they make federal assistance available if a utility wants to build nuclear plants. They do not mandate or fully fund such plants.

So if you're a nuclear opponent and you believe that nuclear plants are never going to attract sufficient private capital, it follows that you think the result of these concessions will be ... not much. Maybe a couple of new plants. Nothing like the silly 100 plants McCain and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) keep talking about.

(Side note: Reid will never, ever concede on nuclear issues until Yucca Mountain is taken completely off the table.)

Point is, both these compromises amount to less than they appear. And if they manage to attract enough Republicans to get the bill through, I will be mind-bogglingly shocked and surprised. It would be a small price to pay, and frankly I've been expecting -- and still expect, really -- a much higher price tag.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

In a disappointing move, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee gave its blessing for offshore drilling in Florida last week, potentially opening Florida’s coasts to oil and gas development.

This is a major reversal that reneges on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which offered the oil and gas industry rights to 8.2 million acres in the eastern Gulf in exchange for the protection of coastal eastern Gulf waters. It also precluded drilling in the remainder of the Gulf Coast and the Florida Panhandle from 125 to 150 miles from shore.

This agreement was supposed to remain in place until 2022, but would be undone if this bill becomes law.

You should expect to hear the argument, again, that we need offshore drilling to keep gas prices down – that the state of the economy requires it. I wonder, then, how drilling hawks will respond if a spill devastates Florida’s beaches or reefs. According to a federal study, tourism contributes $40 billion to Florida’s economy each year and supports half a million jobs.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency has predicted that offshore drilling, even at peak production, will save consumers just pennies at the gas pump. And that’s assuming the gas even gets sold to Americans rather than China, India or any of the other increasingly energy-hungry countries in the world. Not to mention that it will take years for peak production to be realized and for any economic changes to be felt.

To open Florida’s shores to drilling sets us up to accept all the risks of oil and gas development without any of the promised benefits. Lower gas prices and energy security from offshore drilling are mirages at a time when fossil fuels are increasingly outdated – and with this news from Florida, your favorite beach could be the next one threatened by offshore drilling.

Related Links:

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

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Reflecting on the lameness of my profession

In the minutes after midnight on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez poured 10.8 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound. The spill turned pristine spruce-lined waters into a sticky death trap for countless animals, including a quarter of a million birds.

Yet two decades later, the lessons of Exxon Valdez have not been learned. Our oceans and wildlife are no safer from catastrophic oil spills at a time when fossil fuel-based energy makes less sense than ever.

After Exxon Valdez, President George H.W. Bush enacted moratoria on new drilling on the outer continental shelf of the lower 48 states. An earlier Congressional moratorium on the outer continental shelf lapsed in 2008, and the second President Bush lifted the executive moratorium. This left the coasts of the Lower 48 unprotected from oil exploration.

In addition, previously inaccessible Arctic waters have proven irresistible to oil and gas speculators. Unprecedented summer ice loss due to global warming has opened the Chukchi and the neighboring Beaufort Sea to exploration and, inevitably, exploitation.

Last winter, oil companies paid a record-breaking $2.7 billion for leases to drill on 2.8 million acres in Alaska's remote Chukchi Sea in the first federal sale on those waters since 1991. The federal government's own plans have estimated a 40 percent chance of a major spill in the Arctic Ocean, and stated unequivocally that technology does not exist to clean up such a spill.

Despite the "Drill, baby, drill" chorus of the last election, however, offshore drilling will not help lessen our dependence on foreign oil. There is no rule saying that oil companies must sell the oil they find in U.S. waters to Americans; they will just as likely sell it to energy-hungry China. Increased offshore drilling would account for less than one percent of the current energy demand in the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It would amount to mere pennies of savings at the gas pump.

Drilling would do nothing to end our dependence on foreign oil. It would just continue our ongoing addiction.

Oil spills have already displayed, in vivid fashion, how devastating offshore drilling can be to ecosystems as well as local fishing and tourist economies. But the carbon dioxide emissions that eventually result from oil consumption are killing our oceans in a more insidious, silent manner: by causing ocean waters to become increasingly acidic and inhospitable to coral reef growth.

As carbon dioxide levels rise, marine scientists have gradually pushed up the date by which coral reefs will begin to dissolve from the end of this century to as soon as 2050.

Without coral reefs, the nurseries of the seas, oceans will become unrecognizable.

It's not that oceans don't represent a major source of energy. They do. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that that the North American coasts contain enough wind power to sustain America's energy use six times over. Offshore wind could generate nearly $950 billion in economic activity and more than 250,000 jobs in the same timeframe.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has already indicated serious interest in offshore wind, speaking publicly about the need to set up rules for establishing the industry.

In the meantime, the Obama Administration and Congress should immediately reinstate the moratoria on drilling on the outer continental shelf in the Lower 48 and Bristol Bay, Alaska. They must also put a stop to the rush to drill in the Arctic until completing a full assessment of the resources at risk--including the subsistence way of life--in order to determine if oil and gas activities should occur, and if so, where, when and how.

The risks of expanded drilling to our coastal economies and to wildlife are too great, and the potential energy payoff for Americans too little, at a time when we need to be shifting to a clean energy economy.

Ninety percent of the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez was never recovered. No technology exists to effectively clean up oil. We should clean up our act instead.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Clean energy opportunities

New York passes clean energy financing bill

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Clean energy opportunities

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

Related Links:

Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!

The Kerry-Boxer bill is not “more ambitious” than Waxman-Markey

Saudis want aid if world cuts oil use

The Bush administration took the first step toward new offshore drilling on Thursday, asking for public comments on a proposal to potentially open up an area to drilling some 50 miles off the Virginia coast. Even if leasing is ultimately approved, the area wouldn't be leased until 2011 at the earliest, according to the Interior Department.

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

Related Links:

A Penny Saved Is…

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions

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

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

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

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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

Related Links:

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

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

President Bush on Tuesday signed a $630 billion spending bill that includes a $25 billion loan to the struggling auto industry. (Bush's sign-off also marks the expiration of the offshore-drilling ban and keeps the federal government funded through Mar. 6, 2009.) The loan package -- the biggest federal subsidy for Big Auto since the feds bailed out Chrysler in 1980 -- is aimed at helping carmakers improve overall vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, as authorized in the 2007 energy bill. But the money may be a time in coming: the Department of Energy has 60 days to set rules for loan qualification, and DOE Secretary Sam Bodman says it could take up to 18 months for any money to be doled out. Michigan congressfolk are pushing for funding to arrive within six months. But hey, maybe Americans don't need so many cars anymore: according to government stats released Tuesday, U.S. driving dropped in July for the ninth month in a row. Oh, just leave us to our wishful thinking.

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

Related Links:

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A Penny Saved Is…