In the 2008 presidential debates, moderators Tom Brokaw (second debate) and Bob Schieffer (third debate) asked presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain about climate change and reducing American dependence on oil. Both candidates vigorously supported reductions in carbon pollution, though the means to that end differed.

Since that election, the scientific evidence that climate change is real and human-caused has only grown. The health impact and economic costs of the extreme weather events and record temperatures of 2010, 2011, and 2012 are a 10-alarm warning that climate change poses a real threat to Americans and the world. And unlike in 2008, there is a clear difference between the candidates on whether to slow this looming disaster, let alone how to solve it.

The first 2012 presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3 is scheduled to cover domestic policy, with a focus on the economy. Our energy future and response to climate change are as relevant to jobs, taxes, spending, and deficits as any other questions. A coalition of environmental groups just delivered 160,000 signatures to the first debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, “urging him to ask President Obama and Governor Romney about climate change during the first presidential debate next week.” Hopefully Lehrer will respond to this public view by asking at least one question related to climate change and clean energy.

Since the candidates have very different positions on the issues, Lehrer should pose different questions to them. Below are some suggestions, along with some background information on them.

Q. Gov. Romney, as governor you acknowledged that climate change was real and human-induced. Since then, the scientific consensus behind this finding has only grown stronger, including a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report that determined that the “climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.”

What scientific evidence led to your recent questioning of the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-induced? And what evidence led to your current opposition to any carbon pollution reduction program?

Background: Recent Romney response about climate change to The Top American Science Questions: 2012:

I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there is more than ample evidence to act now to reduce the pollution responsible for climate change:

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

Even a Koch Foundation-funded researcher found that climate change is real and human-induced. Richard Muller, a former climate change skeptic, recently conducted a lengthy analysis of temperature data partially funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. This research project concluded that climate change is real and human-induced. He wrote in The New York Times:

Following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Former Romney support for action on global warming, from the Boston Globe, Nov. 8, 2005:

Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.

Q. Gov. Romney, you said that businesses need regulatory certainty and predictability to thrive. American auto companies and workers support the Obama administration’s modernized fuel economy standards, since they provide them with both. Additionally, the standards will save drivers money by reducing gasoline purchases, and will reduce carbon pollution responsible for climate change. Why do you oppose these standards when they are a win-win-win?

Background: Romney campaign on Obama’s finalized auto standards for Model Years 2017-2025:

“Gov. Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “The president tells voters that his regulations will save them thousands of dollars at the pump, but always forgets to mention that the savings will be wiped out by having to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want.”

Q. President Obama, you said during your acceptance speech, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet.” During your first term, you made steep carbon pollution reductions from motor vehicles, and proposed the first limit on pollution from power plants. What specific steps will you take to achieve further carbon pollution reductions as part of your second-term agenda? Will you discuss the specifics of these plans with Americans during the campaign?

Background: Obama acceptance speech, Sept. 6, 2012:

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet — because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future.

What questions do you want to see the candidates asked?

Clean energy is an important part of the economy of Colorado, which is the location of the first presidential debate on Oct. 3.

Colorado’s robust wind industry and 70,000 jobs in green goods and services could suffer if the Production Tax Credit for wind isn’t extended by the end of 2012. The presidential candidates differ on this, as well as other energy issues. Hopefully the Denver debate, scheduled to focus on the economy, will also address energy policies so vital to Colorado and the nation.

The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.

President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.

In short, there are stark differences between the two presidential candidates that must be discussed on Oct. 3 so Americans have a clear view of the energy path each candidate would lead us down.

Below is a more detailed direct comparison of their positions on the most visible energy challenges facing the nation. Following this chart is documentation on the candidates’ positions:

Click to embiggen.

Oil and gas production

Obama:

• Oil imports lowest since 1997; dropped by 15 percent during term to 42 percent; vowed to cut current oil imports in half by 2020. (Energy Information Administration, June 2012)

• Domestic oil production is the highest in 15 years. The United States has more drilling rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. (Center for American Progress Action Fund, Sept. 13, 2012 [PDF]; Energy Information Administration, Sept. 11, 2012)

• Crude oil production from federal lands and waters was higher in 2009, 2010, and 2011 than in any of the last three years of the Bush administration. (EIA, March 14, 2012 [PDF])

• Raised worker and environmental safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, strengthening well design, testing, control equipment, and workplace safety. The Gulf Coast region was not hurt economically by a temporary moratorium, which has the same unemployment as two years ago and had rising personal income in 2011. (White House, March 30, 2012 [PDF], NOLA, April 15, 2012)

Romney

• Would open the Florida portion of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, public lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to new drilling. Would accelerate drilling permits, short circuiting health and environmental reviews. (MittRomney.com, 2011 [PDF])

• Defense Department concerned about Florida and Virginia drilling expansion since it could interfere with military training. (Panama City News Herald, April 4, 2012)

• Called the temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf following the Deepwater Horizon disaster “illegal.” (CBS News, March 9, 2012)

• See “Public lands protection”

Big Oil tax breaks

Obama:

• Calls on Congress to end $4 billion in oil tax breaks and to invest in clean energy instead. (White House, March 28, 2012)

• Pledged to cut subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas internationally, along with G20 nations. (Economist, Oct. 1, 2009)

Romney:

• Romney supports the House Republican budget, authored by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which preserves $40 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry over a decade. (CAP, March 20, 2012)

• Romney’s economic plan would give the big five oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell — an additional $2.3 billion annual tax cut on top of existing tax breaks they currently receive. (CAPAF, July 26, 2012)

• Romney’s plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but does not make specific mention of oil and gas loopholes which let oil companies pay much lower effective federal rates. (MittRomney.com, 2012)

• Asked directly in an interview about whether he is for or against subsidizing Big Oil, Romney responded: “I’m not sure precisely what big tax breaks we’re talking about.” (Fox News, April 3, 2012)

Clean energy

Obama:

• Federal government invested billions of dollars in renewable energy projects, creating tens of thousands of jobs; doubled generation of (non-hydropower) renewable electricity to 6 percent. (EIA, July 1, 2012 [PDF])

• Supports extension of the production tax credit for wind-generated electricity. (White House, May 22, 2012)

• “Governor Romney calls [renewable sources of energy] ‘imaginary.’ Congressman Ryan calls them a ‘fad.’ I think they’re the future. I think they’re worth fighting for.” (Climate Progress, Aug. 28, 2012)

• “I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.” (State of the Union, Jan. 24, 2012)

• Transforming the Pentagon energy use by reducing the military’s dependence on fossil fuels that cost the Pentagon up to $20 billion annually. (National Journal, April 11, 2012)

Romney:

• Opposes the extension of the production tax credit for wind energy, which could cost 37,000 jobs in the industry. (Des Moines Register, July 30, 2012)

• “In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed.” (Columbus Dispatch op-ed, Aug. 8, 2012)

• “You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.” (ThinkProgress, June 3, 2012)

• Endorses the House-passed budget authored by Ryan, which gives a 60 percent funding increase to coal, oil, and natural gas, while it decreases funding for research on vehicle batteries and solar projects, and loans to companies to retool to build fuel-efficient cars. (Politico, April 17, 2012)

Reduce oil use and imports with efficient vehicles

Obama:

• New modern standards require cars and light trucks to achieve an average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This, combined with the first round of standards, will save 3.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2030. This is equivalent to the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf, Colombia, and Venezuela combined. (CAP, Aug. 28, 2012)

• Invested in fuel-efficient vehicle and advanced battery research and development to spur job growth and increase international competitiveness; increased affordability and reliability of electric vehicles. (CAP, Aug. 28, 2012)

• Proposed a “race to the top” for communities to seek federal investment in public electric vehicle recharging infrastructure. (White House, March 30, 2011 [PDF])

Romney:

• “Gov. Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. (LA Times, Aug. 28, 2012)

• Disparaged the first plug-in hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt as “an idea whose time has not come,” and said, “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.” (Michigan Live, Dec. 23, 2012, MSNBC, April 5, 2012). EPA says the Volt gets at least 94 miles per gallon.

• Advocates ending the federal loan program helping companies develop and produce efficient cars. (Orange County Register, Oct. 24, 2011)

• Supports House-passed budget authored by Ryan that would slash investment in alternatives to gasoline-powered cars. (House Budget Committee, FY 2013 [PDF])

Gasoline prices

Obama:

• Commodity Futures Trading Commission should increase market oversight of Wall Street speculators who have driven up oil prices and increase penalties for illegal activity. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act includes rules to limit commodities speculation by Wall Street speculators that do not affect commercial end users. (CNN, April 17, 2012; Media Matters, April 18, 2012)

• Favors investments in alternatives to gasoline, including electric vehicles and public transportation. (CAP, Aug. 28, 2012; American Public Transportation Association, Feb. 13, 2012)

Romney

• Would repeal Dodd-Frank and opposes reining in Wall Street speculators, calling Obama’s move “gimmickry.” (MittRomney.com, April 17, 2012)

• Supports House-passed budget authored by Ryan that would cut Commodity Futures Trading Commission funding by nearly $40 million; cuts would hinder the CFTC’s ability to police the oil and other markets that the commission oversees. (House Budget Committee FY 2013; White House, April 17, 2012)

Green jobs

Obama:

• Historic level of investment in green jobs sector now with 3.1 million Americans employed, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (AP, March 22, 2012)

Romney:

• Repeatedly called green jobs “fake,” such as calling them “illusory” in an op-ed on his energy plan. (Orange County Register, Oct. 24, 2011)

• “[Obama] keeps talking about green jobs; where are they?” (OC Register, Oct. 24, 2011; League of Conservation Voters, Sept. 15, 2011) The Economic Policy Institute estimates that there were nearly 1 million clean energy jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act. (BlueGreen Alliance, Feb. 17, 2011)

Public lands protection

Obama:

• Approved 17 major solar energy installation projects on public lands that are generating 6,000 megawatts of power; will expedite permitting process to increase development in Western states. (Department of Energy, July 24, 2012)

• Announced he would “allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes.” (White House, Jan. 24, 2012)

• Signed a sweeping public lands bill in 2009 that designated 2 million acres of wilderness and created three national parks. (AP, March 31, 2009)

• Used the 1906 Antiquities Act to create three national monuments — Fort Monroe, Va.; Fort Ord, Calif.; and Chimney Rock, Colo. These monuments will bring tourists and economic development to these places.(ClimateProgress, Sept. 20, 2012)

Romney:

• Romney’s energy plan would give states the authority to allow drilling in National Park Service units and other public lands within state borders. The New York Times noted that “states, as a rule, tend to be interested mainly in resource development.” (NYT, Aug. 18, 2012)

• The Romney plan significantly increases the likelihood that drilling could take place in 30 National Park units, including the Flight 93 Memorial and Everglades National Park. (Center for American Progress, Sept. 12, 2012)

• Romney said “I haven’t studied … what the purpose is of” public lands. But he finds it unacceptable when conservation is “designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state.” (McClatchy, Feb. 16, 2012)

• Fully embraced the House-passed budget, authored by Ryan, which would sell off 3.3 millions of acres of national parks and public lands. (ThinkProgress, March 21, 2012)

Climate change

Obama:

• “My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet — because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future.” (Climate Progress, Sept. 6, 2012)

• Finalized the first ever carbon pollution reduction rules for motor vehicles, which will cut carbon pollution from vehicles built between 2012 and 2025. The standards will slash billions of tons of carbon pollution. (White House, Aug. 3, 2012 [PDF])

• Proposed the first carbon pollution reduction for new coal-fired power plants. (NPR, March 27, 2012)

• State Department is leading a group of countries in a program that cuts global warming pollutants like soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons. (NYT, Feb. 16, 2012)

Romney:

• Romney made fun of Obama’s commitment to fighting global warming at the Republican National Convention when he said “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. MY promise is to help you and your family.” (Climate Progress, Sept. 19, 2012)

• “There remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.” (NYT, Sept. 5, 2012)

• “I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.” (ScienceDebate.org, Sept. 4, 2012)

• Says the Clean Air Act doesn’t apply to carbon emissions: “My view is that the EPA in getting into carbon and regulating carbon has gone beyond the original intent of that legislation, and I would not take it there.” Would overturn Supreme Court decision by blocking EPA from setting carbon pollution reduction standards. (Politico, July 18, 2011; MittRomney.com, 2012)

Protect public health from mercury, toxic air pollution

Obama:

• Finalized historic standard that limits harmful mercury and air toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants. Proposed rules to reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from industrial boilers, incinerators, and cement manufacturing. Together, these initiatives will result in $187 billion in annual health benefits and would prevent 21,600 premature deaths, 199,000 cases of asthma, and 12,540 hospitalizations annually. (CAPAF, Sept. 18, 2012)

• Proposed cross-state air pollution rule that would save up to 34,000 lives, and $280 billion in economic benefits, annually; rule was struck down in 2-1 federal appeals court decision, but EPA could appeal. (CAPAF, Sept. 18, 2012)

Romney

• Would promptly issue an executive order that “directs all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation.” (MittRomney.com, 2011 [PDF])

• “Aggressively” develop all our coal sources. “Coal is America’s most abundant energy source. We have reserves that — at current rates of uses — will last for the next 200 years of electricity production in an industry that directly employs perhaps 200,000 workers.” (MittRomney.com, 2011 [PDF])

• Against new EPA regulations of harmful mercury and air pollutants from coal: “I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it’s oil, gas, coal, nuclear.” (The Hill, Dec. 5, 2011)

• Romney’s campaign spokesperson falsely claimed that the mercury pollution-reduction standard “costs more than $1,500 for every one dollar reduction in mercury pollution.” The EPA projects “that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution, Americans get $3 to $9 in health benefits in return.” (Climate Progress, Aug. 21, 2012)

Keystone XL pipeline

Obama:

• Delayed decision to permit construction of Keystone XL pipeline in November 2011 until a new route was identified and evaluated. The original proposed pathway crossed Nebraska’s Sandhills, the recharge zone for the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies water for nearly one-quarter of American agriculture. Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Dave Heineman also opposed this route. Obama noted that the original route could “affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment.” (White House, Nov. 10, 2011; NRDC, July 11, 2011; Nebraska Government, Aug. 11, 2011)

• Congress forced Obama to decide whether to approve or deny the Keystone XL in January 2012 before a new route was selected. He denied it because a new route had not been identified or analyzed. The president said that “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.” (White House, Jan. 18, 2012)

• Approved the Cushing, Okla., to Gulf of Mexico leg of Keystone XL in March to address the overstock of oil in Cushing due to lack of transportation capacity; promised to ensure that construction and operation will proceed in an environmentally sensible way. (CAP, May 5, 2012)

• Obama will decide whether to approve TransCanada’s new proposed northern pipeline route in 2013, after the Nebraska state government and the State Department assess the environmental impacts of the new route. (U.S. Department of State, May 4, 2012)

Romney:

• “If I’m president, we’ll build it if I have to build it myself.” (Huffington Post, May 4, 2012)

• Used his first TV ad of the general election to say he would approve Keystone XL on “day one” if elected. (The Hill, May 18, 2012)

Mitt Romney has turbo-charged his support for Big Oil by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate. The House-passed Ryan budget would retain $40 billion in tax breaks over a decade for Big Oil while demanding huge cuts in the budget for innovation and clean energy. In addition, the Romney-Ryan budget would provide $2.3 billion in new tax breaks for the five largest oil companies. Here’s a reprint of a 2011 post that ran after Ryan first introduced his radical plan.

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution [PDF] is a backward-looking plan that would benefit Big Oil companies at the expense of middle-class Americans. It retains $40 billion in Big Oil tax loopholes while completely eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential for long-term economic growth.

This budget would lock Americans into paying high, volatile energy prices. It would ensure that millions of clean energy jobs are created overseas — not here in the United States. It is a path backward to Bush-Cheney Big Oil energy policies that cost jobs and harm American competitiveness. In short, the Ryan plan ensures that we lose the high-stakes competition for the $2 trillion worldwide cleantech market.

Ryan claims in an April 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed that his plan “rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.” This is false. Ryan’s proposal actually violates his assertion in two ways. It maintains wasteful subsidies for Big Oil, while cutting valuable investments in the clean energy technologies of the future.

Let’s consider each of these in turn. First, Ryan’s plan would continue “welfare” for Big Oil companies. Ryan was asked several times in a recent interview whether his plan would “eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil,” but he refused to answer. Evading an uncomfortable question was his acknowledgment that his budget hatchet leaves Big Oil tax breaks untouched. This is consistent with his recent vote to keep Big Oil tax loopholes as part of the FY 2011 spending bill, while cutting education, medical research, and cleantech investments.

In addition to receiving $40 billion of unnecessary tax breaks, Big Oil does not pay its fair share of royalties for oil and gas produced from publicly owned waters. The Government Accountability Office estimates that a loophole in a 1990s oil-and-gas law could deprive the treasury of $53 billion in lost royalties. In February, the House Republicans overwhelmingly voted against recovering these royalties. Although Ryan’s budget claims that it “stops spending money the government doesn’t have,” it does nothing to recoup these forgone funds. This is another gift for Big Oil, paid for by middle-class taxpayers who must suffer the consequences of other steep spending cuts.

The proposed budget resolution doesn’t just contain billions of dollars of welfare for Big Oil. It would also slash investments in the research, development, and deployment of the clean energy technologies of the future. It would cut clean energy investments by more than half for FY 2011, by two-thirds for FY 2013, and by 90 percent in 2014 to just $1 billion. This will take us back to the miserly clean energy budgets of President George W. Bush.

The proposed budget would weaken the economy and increase the deficit by disinvesting in long-term economic growth the cleantech sector fosters. For instance, the electric vehicles of the future will require advanced batteries, and the American economy will benefit if those batteries are made here. The federal government invested seed money beginning in 2009 to launch such an industry here. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) observed that federal policies on batteries alone “have attracted 17 [battery] companies who are projected to create 63,000 jobs.”

But Ryan’s budget will nearly eliminate funding for this and other R&D programs that can lead to advances in battery technology. It also eliminates loan guarantees that can help manufacturing plants get built in the United States, and ignores investments to build a battery-charging infrastructure essential to expand the market for electric vehicles and reduce oil use.

Much of the Department of Energy’s spending on clean energy programs leverages significant private investment. This varies by program, of course, and is roughly linked to the product development cycle.

For example, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, program gives relatively small grants to companies doing early research into advanced technologies. This leverages a small amount of private investment in the short term, but sets the companies up to attract larger private investments later on. ARPA-E tries to link companies that have received grants with private venture capital investors. Yet funding for this program was eliminated by the House-passed budget for the remainder of FY 2011, and will likely be excluded by the Ryan budget as well.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Department of Energy loan-guarantee program leverages significant private investment. It provides financing to help companies grow new technologies to commercial scale. Since borrowers are very likely to pay back loans, this generates significant private investment from both banks and equity investors. The amount varies by project, but on average, $1 in government spending yields $13 in private investment [PDF], which helps generate economic growth. The House-passed spending bill eliminated this vital program for the remainder of FY 2011, and it will likely be eliminated when the details of Ryan’s proposal are made public. Only in a Big Oil budget would spending $1 to generate $13 more in economic activity be called an “expensive handout.”

These investments spark economic growth, including more jobs and local development. The Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts cleantech companies received $20 million in federal funds that “raised nearly five times as much — $95 million — from private investors. The money has helped create several dozen jobs, expand offices, and lay the groundwork for new manufacturing as the companies begin testing technologies on ever-larger scales.”

Ryan’s proposed budget also disregards the economic benefits of a clean energy future to middle-class families. In addition to creating new industries and jobs, clean energy sources that rely on homegrown wind, solar, geothermal energy, or efficiency will insulate Americans from rising and volatile energy prices.

An innovation-based economy requires government support for scientific research, development, and deployment. Such investments create domestic manufacturing jobs producing new cleantech products. Without federal investments in innovation and cleantech start-up companies, it is very difficult to create a supply chain of related jobs that provide essential goods and services for these new technologies. Meanwhile our competitors invest heavily in the development of their cleantech industries. China, for instance, invests $12 billion monthly in its wind, solar, and other renewable clean energy projects. The Ryan budget’s cutbacks in innovation investments condemn Americans to a future where new job creation happens overseas rather than at home.

The Ryan budget undermines our economy in another way. It goes backward by continuing to allow harmful, costly pollution. Its attacks on “environmental regulations” ignore their economic benefit. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, determined that the Clean Air Act has generated $20 in benefits for every $1 in cleanup costs — a return on investment that would make Warren Buffet proud.

Paul Ryan’s proposed budget resolution would keep Big Oil fat and happy while condemning the rest of us to high energy prices, job losses to other nations, and air pollution. Rather than foster innovation and economic growth like President Obama’s proposed budget, it is a path to perdition.

A version of this post originally appeared on Climate Progress.

Big polluters and their congressional allies have created a new straw man to knock down with the invention of the so-called “war on coal.” It is a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign funded by Big Coal polluters to protect their profits and distract Americans from the deadly effects of air pollution on public health.

However, with the number of coal jobs in key coal states actually on the rise since 2009, it’s more like peacetime prosperity than war in coal country. The War on Coal is nothing more than a new shiny object, designed by big polluters to distract Americans from the real war — the polluters’ attacks on their health — and the truth.

Coal companies and dirty utilities claim that long-overdue requirements to reduce mercury, arsenic, smog, acid rain, and carbon pollution from power plants will kill jobs. In West Virginia, however, coal mining employment was higher in 2011 than at any time over the last 17 years. Federal jobs statistics also show modest coal mining job growth in coal states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.

In West Virginia, a recent report from the nonpartisan West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy showed coal mining jobs are actually rising, with 1,500 new coal jobs added since 2009. In Pennsylvania, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data shows a 2.3 percent increase in coal-related jobs. And in Virginia, EIA data shows a 6.7 percent increase in coal mining employment from 2009 to 2010.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated or proposed new clean air standards for smog, acid rain, mercury, air toxics, and carbon pollution that will save lives, create jobs, and protect public health. For example, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard [PDF] alone could prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 130,000 asthma incidents, and 540,000 lost work days every year. This would provide at least $59 billion in economic benefits.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) projects that the mercury standard will actually have a “positive net impact on overall employment — likely leading to the net creation of 84,500 jobs between now and 2015.” The jobs created by the standard, however, would not just be limited to certain industrial sectors. EPI’s study projects that “8,000 jobs would be gained in the utility industry itself,” along with the over 80,500 jobs that would be created to build pollution control equipment. While dirty coal companies claim that the mercury standard will cause massive unemployment, EPI notes that “only 10,600 jobs would be displaced due to higher energy costs.” Richard Morgenstern, a former Reagan and Clinton EPA official, predicts that the new standard will have “no net impact” on employment.

EPA predicts that its proposed carbon pollution standard [PDF] for new power plants will have no impact on employment or existing coal plants. In fact, the standard simply complements existing market factors, as the EPA points out:

Because this standard is in line with current industry investment patterns, this proposed standard is not expected to have notable costs and is not projected to impact electricity prices or reliability.

So what is happening to King Coal? The real culprit is the low price for natural gas. A February 2012 analysis of coal plant retirements by the Analysis Group [PDF] found that coal plant declines resulted from basic changes in market forces:

 The sharp decline in natural gas prices, the rising cost of coal, and reduced demand for electricity are all contributing factors in the decisions to retire some … coal-fired generating units. These trends started well before EPA issued its new air pollution standards.

Coal industry executives themselves say that low natural gas prices, a warm winter, and a sluggish economy are the primary reasons for coal mining worker layoffs. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) noted [PDF] that industry-commissioned doomsday projections of economic losses from EPA standards are vastly exaggerated by including unrelated regulations and worst-case scenarios. BPC found that “several investment analysts were conducted prior to EPA’s [rule] proposal and made worst case estimates about what EPA was likely to require.”

Coal-generated electricity is relatively inexpensive because the public pays for the external costs from burning coal. These expensive harms include premature deaths, asthma attacks, respiratory ailments, lost productivity, and the impacts of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that burning coal costs $62 billion annually due to premature deaths, more respiratory ailments, and lost work days.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — a front group for coal companies and dirty utilities — plans to spend at least $40 million in ads and lobbying to convince Congress to block these vital public health standards. Fortunately, voters won’t be fooled by this attempt to distract them from the real public health impacts of dangerous air pollution. We understand that this isn’t a war on coal. It’s a war on us.

Cross-posted from Climate Progress.

Republican congressional leaders have failed to force President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. But that’s not stopping them from trying over and over again, taking hostages in the process.

First they used the payroll tax cut extension as a vehicle to force a decision on the pipeline in 60 days, even before the final route was identified. Obama was forced to reject the permit because there was no time to assess its potential pollution.

This week, several senators took a different hostage: our emergency oil supply. On Feb. 13, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), John Hoevan (R-N.D.), and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) introduced the Strategic Petroleum Supplies Act, S. 2100, that would prevent Obama from selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) unless Keystone is approved:

 … the administration shall not authorize a sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve … until the date on which all permits necessary … for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) have been issued.

In other words, unless the president approves Keystone, he cannot sell our emergency oil — even if Iran causes an oil supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a hurricane or other disaster disables oil production or refining facilities, or any other type of event causes gasoline prices to soar above $4 per gallon. If any of these events happen, middle class Americans would pay significantly higher gasoline pump prices, giving billions of dollars more to big oil companies that made record profits last year.

These are not far-fetched examples — all of these situations occurred. President George H. W. Bush sold SPR oil in 1991 before the first Iraq war in case of a supply disruption. President George W. Bush sold SPR oil in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina knocked out oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama sold SPR oil in 2011 to offset the disruption of Libyan oil production due to its civil war. In fact, Sen. Vitter praised Obama for the latter SPR oil sale.

All of these SPR sales lowered gasoline prices and prevented significant economic damage while protecting drivers from huge gasoline price spikes. Such emergency sales would be prohibited under S. 2100 unless the Keystone XL pipeline is approved.

Additionally, this bill threatens our national security, because it would give Iran more incentive to cause an oil supply disruption knowing that the U.S. could not legally access its 695 million barrels of oil reserves.

These hostage-taking senators would argue that the Keystone XL pipeline — like the SPR — is vital to provide oil for Americans. However, that is false. It is likely that a large portion of the tar-sands oil sent to Texas refineries will be for export [PDF], and would not be sold in the U.S. At a December congressional hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) questioned the CEO of Keystone pipeline owner TransCanda about keeping the tar-sands oil in the United States. The CEO “said he could not guarantee that the fuel from the pipeline would stay in the United States.”

Watch it:

On Feb. 14, 800,000 Americans signed an emergency petition to senators urging them to stop trying to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. These Americans oppose the pipeline because it would lead to the doubling of Canadian tar-sands oil production, which produces 15 percent more carbon dioxide pollution compared to conventional oil, at a time when we must shift to lower carbon fuels to reduce the impacts of climate change.

The Senate is trying to force a pipeline route through Nebraska that is not yet identified, let alone evaluated to determine its impact on air and water quality. Because much of the tar-sands oil refined in the U.S. would go overseas, Americans would bear the environmental risks while other nations get the oil.

Sen. Vitter’s bill would force the president to approve the harmful Keystone XL pipeline just to get access to our emergency oil reserves and protect Americans from economic or security threats. Regardless of whether senators oppose or support approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, they should oppose this attempt to destroy a vital economic and national security safeguard.

Cross-posted from Climate Progress.

As part of the fiscal year 2013 budget [PDF] released on Feb. 13, President Obama proposed to eliminate $40 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas producers over the next 10 years. Yesterday, the Yale Project on Climate Change reiterated its recent finding that Americans of all political stripes oppose subsidies for “coal, oil, and natural gas companies.” They oppose these subsidies by 70 percent to 30 percent — better than two to one. Republicans oppose these subsidies by 67 percent to 34 percent (reflects rounding of percentages).

Intensity matters in public opinion. A determined, energetic minority can be quite powerful. The Yale poll shows that there is much more intensity against oil subsidies than in favor of them. Americans strongly opposed to the subsidies outnumber those who strongly support them by 31 percent to 3 percent — a 10-to-1 ratio. Independents — the voters who will likely determine the outcome of the 2012 election — strongly oppose these fossil fuel subsidies by 45 percent to 2 percent.

This poll was conducted from Oct. 20 to Nov. 16, 2011, before respondents knew that the profits of the big five oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell — would be a record $137 billion in 2011. In addition, gasoline prices averaged $3.38 to $3.44 per gallon during the survey period. This week the average gasoline price was $3.52 and climbing. Imagine how the anticipated higher gasoline prices, combined with Big Oil’s record 2011 profits, will intensify opposition to Big Oil subsidies.

It is said that elections are won in the middle. Politicians who want to appeal to these independent voters would do well to vocally oppose these Big Oil subsidies. Certainly President Obama understands that. Supporters of Big Oil tax breaks may learn this lesson the hard way.

Cross-posted from Climate Progress.

President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget invests in clean energy to help power the engine of economic growth. The budget would direct funds to efficiency and renewable electricity technologies to create jobs and boost domestic manufacturing, and would also make manufacturing more efficient. The cleaner energy that will result from these investments will reduce pollution and protect public health. In addition, the budget would make taxes fairer by eliminating $40 billion in unnecessary breaks for big oil companies, which made record profits in 2011.

This clean energy vision would benefit middle-class Americans and the rest of the 99%. It is a stark contrast to the “drill, baby, drill” policies promoted by the American Petroleum Institute and other Big Oil allies.

Here are 11 important clean energy provisions in the president’s proposed 2013 budget:

1. Extend the production tax credit for wind energy: Wind projects currently receive a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Thanks to this production tax credit, enough new wind energy was built in 2011 to power more than 2 million homes. The credit is set to expire, however, at the end of this year. Without an extension, 37,000 jobs could be lost. The budget would extend the production tax credit through 2013.

2. Extend the Treasury Cash Grant Program (Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to assist small renewable companies: This program provided grants in lieu of tax credits to small renewable companies that were unable to utilize the credits, but it expired at the end of 2011. Extending it for one year would create 37,000 jobs in the solar industry alone [PDF]. The budget would extend the credit for one year and then convert the program into a refundable tax credit through 2016.

3. Increase research and development (R&D) funding for advanced energy technologies: The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive $350 million for investments in potentially game-changing energy technologies. The Department of Energy (DOE) reports that “11 projects that received $40 million from ARPA-E over the last two years have attracted more than $200 million in private capital following successful research breakthroughs.”

This funding would also boost domestic manufacturing, as investments in innovative R&D would lead to the development of cleantech products that can be made in the United States.

4. Invest in clean domestic manufacturing: The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership helps domestic manufacturers become more competitive and create jobs by reducing energy use and saving money. The budget would provide $290 million for R&D for more efficient industrial processes and materials.

The budget would also provide $5 billion for the “48C” clean energy manufacturing tax credit for companies that manufacture cleantech products, including energy efficiency equipment, renewable energy equipment, and “a wide range of clean energy products.” The original $2.3 billion program that was oversubscribed in 2009 leveraged $2 of private investment for $1 of tax credit, and created 58,000 jobs.

5. Invest in solar and wind energy: The DOE budget [PDF] provides $310 million for the SunShot Initiative, designed to make solar electricity cost-competitive with dirtier fossil fuel energy without subsidies by 2020. It also includes $95 million for wind energy, including offshore wind technologies.

The Department of the Interior budget expands the program to review and issue permits for renewable energy projects on public lands to meet the president’s goal of 11,000 gigawatts by the end of 2013. This is enough to power an estimated 2.5 million homes.

6. Invest in energy efficiency: Using less energy is an effective way to lower electricity bills and cut pollution. In addition to helping manufacturers save, the budget would also target buildings for energy savings. The Washington Post reports that the “proposed budget includes an 80 percent increase in money to promote energy efficiency in commercial buildings and industries.”

As part of this effort, the budget increases the DOE Building Technologies Program by 40 percent to “[s]upport accelerated research and development for innovative building efficiency technologies and the continued introduction of consensus-driven appliance efficiency standards.”

The budget also anticipates congressional enactment of the Home Star program [PDF] to help owners retrofit their houses to become more energy efficient and lower their energy bills.

7. Increase funds for environmental enforcement: Environmental enforcement is a key element to ensure compliance with safeguards to reduce mercury, lead, smog, acid rain, and other toxic pollutants. But the fewer green cops on the beat, the less likely it is that some firms will comply with pollution reduction requirements.

The proposed 2013 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget [PDF] includes increased funding for “[c]ore priorities, such as the agency’s operating budget which includes funds for the enforcement of environmental and public health protections.” States would receive 10 percent more funds for implementation and enforcement of federal environmental safeguards.

The Department of the Interior budget [PDF] also includes $222 million for its new Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. This includes 13 percent more money, and would pay for oil spill response planning and safety inspections, and enforcement and investigations to prevent another oil disaster like the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout.

8. Reduce global warming pollution and impacts: The administration plans to undertake a number of actions to “reduce GHG [greenhouse gases] before it is too late.” This includes implementing its second round of fuel economy and carbon dioxide pollution standards for cars and light trucks, which will reduce fuel use by 12 million barrels of oil and cut carbon dioxide pollution by 6 billion metric tons from cars built through 2025. In addition, the EPA plans to “continue to develop regulatory strategies to control GHG emissions from major stationary sources.”

The budget also includes a 6 percent increase in funds to build on our base of scientific knowledge about global warming and “accurately project climate change and its impacts.”

Finally, there is a modest increase in funds to help public lands managers measure climate change impacts and adopt appropriate management practices.

9. Invest in energy and money savings by the military: The Department of Defense [PDF] “consumes almost three-fourths of all federal energy resources.” The proposed budget would double spending on clean energy compared to 2012 by investing $1 billion in clean energy, including efficiency retrofits for buildings and meeting efficiency standards for new facilities.

The National Journal reports other investments include:

[Replacement of] traditional jet fuel with biofuels, supply troops on the front lines with solar-powered electronic equipment, build hybrid engine tanks and aircraft carriers, and increase renewable energy use on military bases.

Although some conservatives have attacked clean energy investments in the private sector, some leaders support these military clean energy investments. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, noted “that it [clean energy investments] has grown as a culture and a practice and it’s a good thing.”

10. Maintain funding for international climate finance: The budget includes at least $833 million for international climate investments to support sustainable landscapes, clean energy, and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. The funds, consistent with last year’s spending, invest in programs at the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

These investments demonstrate ongoing U.S. commitment to international climate involvement beyond the U.S. pledge for fast-start financing for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The administration understands these additional investments are critical to curb dangerous climate pollution, enhance national security, create American jobs, and secure leadership abroad.

11. Cut oil and gas tax breaks by $40 billion over a decade: The 2013 budget would make taxes fairer by eliminating $40 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for oil and gas companies. And about one-fourth of the savings would be invested in domestic manufacturing, which would create jobs. The five largest oil companies made a record $137 billion in profits in 2011, so they don’t need $4 billion in annual tax breaks.

Some of these proposals are familiar because the president proposed them in previous budgets. Although House Republican leaders have previously rejected them to benefit their Big Oil and Big Coal allies, these proposals remain good ideas that would benefit the middle class and the entire 99%.

Unfortunately, public support for these proposals has not been enough to overcome special interest opposition, aiding the 1% who profit from the energy status quo — high oil and gasoline prices, toxic air pollution, and record profits for oil companies. Obama’s budget, instead, would propel us along a clean energy path with more jobs, less pollution, and fairer taxes.

Cross-posted from the Center for American Progress. This post was coauthored by Jackie Weidman and Rebecca Leber.

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011 — up 75 percent from 2010 — and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011.^[1] This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.

Here are some more highlights from the Big Five’s activities in 2011:

• They produced 4 percent less oil and “oil equivalent” in 2011 compared to 2010.
• They spent a total of $38 billion, or 28 percent, of their profits to repurchase their own stock.
• They are sitting on more than $58 billion in cash reserves as of the end of 2011.
• They spent $1.6 million on campaign contributions and $65.7 million on lobbying efforts.
• For every $1 spent on lobbying in Washington, the Big Five received $30 worth of tax breaks.

Let’s dig a little deeper into this mystery to see why these companies are making more money while Americans see less oil and pay more at the pump.

Where the money goes

In spite of these high profits and oil prices, oil-equivalent production fell from 2010 levels for four of the Big Five. Shell’s profit, for example, increased by 54 percent from 2010 to 2011 while its oil and natural gas production decreased by 3 percent during the same time period.

So if the Big Five companies are not using their additional earnings to increase production, what are they spending their money on? The answer: They’re buying shares of their own stocks and investing in politicians to maintain the policies that led to their enormous profits over the past decade.

Instead of heavily investing in job creation or production, the Big Five used $38 billion, or 28 percent of annual net income, to repurchase their own stocks. This practice enriches shareholders but it doesn’t add to oil supplies or investments in alternative fuels or other new technologies.

These companies also cling to tax breaks while maintaining $58 billion in cash reserves. This is nearly 30 times more than the estimated $2 billion in annual special tax breaks that these companies receive.

Tax breaks, but not more jobs

ExxonMobil, the most profitable of the Big Five, paid an effective tax rate of 17.6 percent (from 2008–2010 data), which is 3 percent less than what the average American family paid. But Exxon and other oil companies that receive these tax breaks do not pass benefits on to consumers. Instead, their board members, executives, and shareholders are the ones that profit.

These companies, along with the American Petroleum Institute (API) — their political arm — fight relentlessly to keep their tax breaks intact by threatening economic and energy damage. API claims [PDF] that eliminating tax loopholes for the oil and gas industry would “lose jobs … and energy production.” Yet higher oil prices and profits, combined with huge reserves and tax breaks, yielded lower, not higher, employment and oil production.

Last year, the Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee released “Profits and Pink Slips: How Big Oil and Gas Companies are Not Creating U.S. Jobs or Paying Their Fair Share” [PDF]. This report revealed:

Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP combined to reduce their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that time.

Nor are many of these net revenues used for oil production. The report found that “among the Big 5 oil companies, less than 10 percent of profits are reinvested into exploration of new oil deposits.”

The report also concluded that:

The oil and gas industry is a mature and highly profitable sector that is no longer in need of generous tax breaks or royalty free drilling. The $43.6 billion in tax subsidies that the industry is set to receive over the next decade will not help consumers with rising energy costs.

One place where oil companies have no trouble spending money, however, is in Congress. Last year, the Big Five spent $65.7 million on lobbying efforts, successfully persuading their congressional friends to retain tax breaks. Both the House and Senate had votes to scale back these tax breaks, and both proposals were defeated.^[2]

And Big Oil’s lobbying expenditures were quite a bargain. For every $1 the Big Five spent on lobbying in D.C. last year, they effectively received $30 in subsidies disguised as tax breaks. This is equivalent to a 3,000 percent return on every dollar they invested in strong-arming Congress.

More than $1.6 million was spent on campaign contributions in 2011 from just four of the top five oil companies. And more than 90 percent of these campaign contributions were made to Republican candidates or committees. But that doesn’t even include their undisclosed contributions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, or other organizations that also support tax breaks for Big Oil.

In the spirit of giving, three of the five Big Oil CEOs — Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil, John Watson of Chevron, and Jim Mulva of ConocoPhillips — contributed an additional $75,000 to GOP candidates and committees.

Enough is enough

Two days after his State of the Union address last month, President Obama spoke in Aurora, Colo., about American-made energy. He reiterated his call to eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil:

We subsidized oil for a very long time, long enough. It’s time to stop giving taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable.

Seventy-four percent of Americans agree with the president’s desire to eliminate tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

Instead of benefiting oil companies that reward senior executives, board members, and stockholders, these taxpayer funds should be invested in projects that benefit all Americans. A University of Massachusetts study found that investment in clean energy creates anywhere from two to four times more direct and indirect jobs compared to the same investment in oil and gas production.

But let’s put these tax breaks in context. Ending the $2 billion in annual tax breaks for the Big Five oil companies could pay for:

• The salaries of 36,000 high school teachers earning an average of $55,000 per year
• Pell Grants for more than 500,000 aspiring college students
• 67,000 home solar energy systems costing an average of $15,000, which would reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 175,000 metric tons annually

Last September while addressing economic growth and deficit reduction, President Obama noted that as we cut federal program funding to reduce the budget deficit, “Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.”

After a year of near-record profits and a decade of more than $1 trillion in total profits, the least the five huge oil companies can do to help our nation is to relinquish their unnecessary and ineffective tax breaks.

Endnotes:

[1] In 2010, BP suffered a net loss of $4 billion due to its huge expenditures related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. If BP is excluded from profit calculations in 2010 and 2011, the four remaining companies had a 36 percent increase in profit.

[2] On March 1, 2011, the House voted 249-176 to defeat a “Motion to Recommit [that] would repeal oil and tax production tax breaks for major integrated oil companies.” On May 17 the Senate voted 52-48 on a motion to proceed to the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, S. 940. Sixty votes were required to end debate and proceed to the bill, so it failed.

New vehicle emissions standards: Good call, Obama.Photo: The White House

The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begins today in Durban, South Africa.

In advance of the meeting, some nations have legitimately criticized the United States for its lack of leadership in the development of a climate agreement that puts the world on the path to reducing the carbon and other pollution responsible for climate change.

A variety of issues will confront the Obama administration at the meeting, particularly additional progress on the essential measures advanced last year at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico.  Most importantly, COP17 must agree to an implementing document for the Green Climate Fund that will finance adaptation efforts in developing nations likely to be affected by climate change.

Another key element is the emerging deal over how and whether the Kyoto Protocol will be extended for a second commitment period beyond 2012.  While the U.S. is not a party to that agreement, the European Union is pressuring all parties at this year’s COP to agree to opening discussions for a new binding treaty after 2020 in exchange for their commitment to keep the protocol in place for another five years.

As they have in years past, the United States negotiating team has been playing hard ball.  For example, it demands that any emerging climate agreement after 2020 be relatively symmetrical for all major carbon polluters, especially China.  But, as in years past, American efforts to shape the outcome of the meeting are again hampered by criticisms by other nations for its lack of leadership in reducing its own emissions. Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action, urged that in deciding climate policy, “it only makes sense if major emitters are willing to say, if not what, [then] when are you willing to say you’re willing to commit.”

This year, these critics of the U.S. position should acknowledge that the Obama administration is using its administrative authority to require pollution reductions, despite fervent opposition from nearly all Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.  In the last few months, the Environmental Protection Agency scrapped new regulations on smog-forming emissions and delayed rules on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, setting off criticism from environmental groups that want to see more action on these issues. However, there are other rules in the works that could have a significant impact on global warming pollution.  On November 16 and 17, the administration announced two steps that could reduce carbon dioxide pollution from the two largest United States’ sources – motor vehicles and power plants.

The Energy Information Administration reports that coal plants make up 35% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Likewise, the transportation sector is responsible for 34% of all carbon dioxide emissions by sector.  The final versions of rules proposed to reduce pollution from these sources must reflect reductions possible with the most modern technology, and the power plant rules must cover both new and existing sources. If this occurs, the United States would put a major down payment on climate change pollution reductions.

The Obama administration’s new proposed rules to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from cars built from 2017-2025 should be applauded. The November 16 announcement from the Obama Administration represents the most significant step that the federal government has taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The joint proposal, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) sets stronger fuel economy and carbon dioxide tailpipe standards for passenger cars and light trucks, designating an average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg in 2025.

This proposal builds on the successful standards that the EPA and DOT are currently implementing for cars and light trucks built between 2012 and 2016.  According to theWhite House, the administration’s fuel efficiency standard takes historic steps to reduce our dependence on oil by an estimated 12 billion barrels, and reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day by 2025, which equals as much as half of the oil we import from OPEC nations each day. Americans will reduce gasoline purchases by over $1.7 trillion at the pump, or over $8,000 per vehicle, by 2025.

On November 17, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans early next year to propose the first ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants. The EPA originally planned to issue these rules in June, and again in September, but they took longer to develop and hopefully get right after consulting with businesses, states, and other stake holders. It is essential that the EPA establishes carbon dioxide pollution restrictions for both new and existing coal fired power plants.

The Obama administration’s efforts are occurring in a very hostile, anti-scientific national political environment. Many politicians simply don’t believe climate change is already underway, let alone support any solutions. This scientific ignorance and opposition makes the United States different from every other democracy, and limits our ability to play the leadership role befitting a super power.  For example, theHouse of Representatives refused a zero-cost reorganization of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to create a National Climate Service that would act as a “one-stop shop” for climate data. Its opponents claim that the service could become a “propaganda source,” instead of commending the administration on a cost-effective solution for increasing demand for climate information.

While members of Congress are swatting down even the most harmless climate science programs, the Obama administration is trying to invest in our clean energy future. These investments are essential due to their lasting economic benefits, potential for new job creation and consumer savings, and significant environmental gains.  While governmental and non-governmental parties at Durban may fairly criticize the Obama administration’s n
egotiating positions, they should not doubt its commitment to reducing emissions despite an extremely difficult political environment at home.

Cross-posted from the Center for American Progress. This post was coauthored by Matthew Kasper, an energy intern at the Center for American Progress.

By Dec. 16, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will promulgate its final rule requiring coal-fired power plants to reduce their emissions of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic chemicals. The EPA notes that these safeguards will prevent 17,000 premature deaths annually [PDF], as well as prevent 12,000 hospital visits and 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma. The economic benefits could outweigh the costs by up to $14 to $1.

Yet a concerted cadre of big dirty utilities and coal companies are doing everything in their power to scuttle or delay these essential safeguards 21 years after the Clean Air Act required them.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is a coal industry coalition leading the charge to block the mercury and air toxics reduction rules. These efforts include spending $35 million on misleading television ads. Its members include major utilities such as Southern Company and DTE Energy. Huge coal companies are also major ACCCE supporters, including Arch Coal and Peabody. Other members include railroads that haul coal.

ACCCE is a vocal opponent of the air toxics rule for utilities. They even have a “countdown clock” for the days until the safeguards are issued. Its members are primarily concerned that the air toxics rule “is the most expensive rule the EPA has ever written for coal-fueled power plants.”

But this claim ignores the fact that the 22 ACCCE companies have nearly $18 billion in cash reserves, which should substantially ease their ability to withstand any economic impact of cleanup.

A Federal Reserve report released this month documented the massive cash reserves held by American corporations. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

The ACCCE companies are part of this cash-rich phenomenon. An analysis of the ACCCE member companies’ 10K forms filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission determined that they had $17.8 billion in “cash and cash equivalents” on hand at the end of the last reporting period on Sept. 30, 2011. (Two companies’ last reports were from earlier dates.)

The nine ACCCE utilities that would have to reduce their emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other cancer-causing pollutants have combined cash reserves of nearly $7 billion. The cash reserves of these nine companies is not much less than the $11 billion that the EPA estimates that all coal-fired power plants will spend to meet these new pollution-reduction standards. Seven of these companies are just a small portion of the 220 investor-owned utilities that produce nearly three-quarters of America’s electricity. The other two companies are cooperatives.

Companies hold cash for various purposes. But whatever the reason these companies hold large reserves, they strongly suggest that the utilities possess ample financial resources available to invest in pollution-reduction equipment essential to protect public health.

And investing cash in pollution control will create jobs. An analysis by the University of Massachusetts determined that the air toxics utility rule, combined with reductions of acid rain and smog pollutants from power plants under the cross-state air pollution rule, would create 1.5 million jobs over five years.

Coal producers and railroads, too, are sitting on mountains of cash reserves to cushion any dip in coal consumption, as some utilities rely more on cleaner fuels after the mercury rules take effect. Our analysis found that the ACCCE companies in these industries held a total of $5.4 billion and $5 billion in cash reserves, respectively. These resources are from seven coal companies and four railroads.

Coal-fired power plants are one of the largest sources of uncontrolled harmful air pollution in the United States. The EPA [PDF] determined that:

Power plants are the largest source of several harmful pollutants. They are responsible for 50 percent of mercury emissions, over 50 percent of acid gas emissions, and about 25 percent of toxic metal emissions in the United States.

Yet ACCCE’s member companies want to continue jeopardizing the public’s health with this unfettered pollution. They have ample cash reserves to easily withstand any economic impact of pollution reductions. ACCCE and its companies are furiously pressuring Congress to block or delay the air toxics reduction rules. Congress must ignore their pleadings and allow these long-overdue health protections to take effect next month.