Photo by Nick Humphries.

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.

Will the GOP ever stop pushing Keystone XL? (Photo by truthout.)

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.

Nice work on this one, Barack. (Photo by the White House.)

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.

Big Coal feels sorry for itself, not the kids getting sick from air pollution.

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.

Jon Huntsman.Photo: Gage Skidmore

Presidential candidate, former ambassador to China, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman received attention for his willingness to accept scientists’ verdict that carbon dioxide and other pollutants generated by humans are responsible for climate change.

While 98 of 100 climate scientists agree that global warming is real, he is the only one out of nine Republican presidential candidates to say so. Nonetheless, his energy plan presented at a speech delivered on Tuesday in New Hampshire would increase global warming pollution. The other elements of the plan increase fossil fuel production and consumption, and are based on lack of understanding about energy use and policies.

Let’s take a closer look.

Just a few short years ago, then-Gov. Huntsman supported a cap-and-trade system to reduce the carbon dioxide pollution responsible for climate change. He even joined two other governors in ads for the Environmental Defense Fund that urge government action to reduce pollution. He noted that a program to reduce global warming would “bring new jobs and exports.” He concluded that “now it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse gas pollution.”

During an Oct. 16, 2008, gubernatorial debate, Huntsman reiterated that it was essential to put a price on carbon dioxide pollution to protect public health and the climate.

Two months ago, Huntsman vigorously rejected Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-Texas) climate science denial, and warned that this approach could harm the Republican Party.

When we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences have said, about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position.

But all of Huntsman’s proposals outlined in his recent energy plan would exacerbate the problem, not address it. For example, he supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Alberta to Texas to refine into gasoline and sell overseas. Tar-sands production [PDF] yields 14 to 25 percent more carbon dioxide pollution from “well to wheel” compared to conventional oil. Huntsman’s desire to develop these high carbon fuels while also recognizing the reality of climate change is like a doctor urging a cancer patient to increase his smoking.

In addition to support for policies that would make global warming worse, Huntsman is advocating policies that would ignore investments in new, clean technologies of the future. His case for these policies is based on so many false or misleading statistics, so let’s break them down:

Jon Huntsman’s claims about the energy world

Coal to liquid fuel is “an emerging technology.”

The facts: The Fischer-Tropsch process to convert coal to liquid fuel was perfected by the Nazis during World War II, and provided one-quarter of their gasoline. The dirty policy: Supports coal to liquid plants that produce significantly more carbon dioxide pollution.

“Today we import 60 percent” of our oil.

The facts: According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), “the United States imported about 49 percent of the petroleum we consumed during 2010. The dirty policy: Allows more drilling, including in special vulnerable places such as the Florida Gulf Coast and protected areas in Alaska.

How can we stabilize our economy when its most fundamental building block is controlled in large part by despots and dictators half a world away?

The facts: Says the EIA, “49 percent of U.S. crude oil and petroleum products imports came from the Western Hemisphere during 2010. About 18 percent of our imports of crude oil and petroleum products come from the Persian Gulf.” The dirty policy: Increases risk of future blowouts by removing new safety requirements implemented after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster last year.

We must remove the regulatory constraints on the production of domestic energy.

The facts: EIA found that “strong gains in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and the Bakken formation brought decades of contraction in domestic oil production to a sudden halt, and even led to a rebound. U.S. crude oil output increased by an estimated 334,000 barrels per day between 2005 and 2010, further eroding the need for imported crude oil.” The American Petroleum Institute [PDF] estimates the “average active rotary drilling rigs in the U.S. as of Oct. 1, 2011: 1,978. (2010 average: 1,541).” This is a 28 percent increase. The dirty policy: Increases risk of future blowouts by removing new safety requirements implemented after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster last year.

Coal “generates the majority of America’s power.”

The facts: EIA reports that coal was 21 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2009. Coal generated 45 percent of U.S. electricity that year. The dirty policy: Expands the use of dirty coal without reductions in acid rain, smog, toxics, or carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants.

My administration will stand behind the Keystone pipeline, creating more than 100,000 American jobs while reducing our dependence on overseas imports.

The facts: TransCanada, the company that would build the Keystone pipeline, predicts that it would only “put 20,000 Americans to work to construct the project.” The U.S. Department of State estimates that “the construction workforce would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers.” The dirty policy: Supports the Keystone XL pipeline even though it would produce significantly more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional oil production.

Hyperbolic fracking has been used on more than 1 million wells using a technology refined over 60 years.

The facts: There is no such thing as “hyperbolic fracking.” Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has been used to produce oil and shale gas. The dirty policy: Stalls rules to keep diesel fuel out of drinking water, and weakens the modest Clean Water Act protections for rivers and streams from water contaminated with radioactive materials and other pollutants. Eliminates the proposed reductions in smog and toxic air pollution from fracking operations. 

As president, I will break down barriers to the continued, safe use of fracking.

The facts: There are no federal rules governing the disclosure of toxic fracking fluids, underground injection of contaminated water, or capture of fugitive methane — a major climate change pollutant. These are governed by state laws, which the president cannot overturn. The dirty policy: Stalls rules to keep diesel fuel out of drinking water, and weakens the modest Clean Water Act protections for rivers and streams from water contaminated with radioactive materials and other pollutants. Eliminates the proposed reductions in smog and toxic air pollution from fracking operations. 

This summer, in fact, we will likely see blackouts as a result of the administration’s assault on coal.

The facts: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Jon Wellinghoff [PDF] recently testified before Congress that “regulations that the EPA recently finalized or is now considering will affect the operation of some electric generation units. With sufficient information and time, the electric industry can plan to meet both its reliability and environmental obligations.” Ralph Izzo, chair, president, and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group, noted that “we believe our industry is capable of meeting these clean air rules while maintaining electric system reliability.” The dirty policy: Blocks reductions in mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other airborne toxic chemicals from power plants. Without these safeguards, the American Lung Association reports that every year there would be 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms; 12,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis among children.

Under my presidency, the United States will get out of the subsidy business. And if necessary, I will use my executive authority to act unilaterally.

The facts: Most federal energy subsidies are embedded in tax or energy laws. For example, there are $4 billion in annual tax breaks for big oil companies. It would require an act of Congress, signed by the president, to eliminate or modify them. The president cannot act unilaterally to eliminate them. The dirty policy: Leaves intact tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, even though the five largest oil companies made $101 billion in profits so far in 2011.

Huntsman distinguished himself from his competitors by accepting climate science. But the inconvenient truth is that his energy proposals vary little from those proposed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

All three plans would expand the use of dirty fossil fuels while limiting investments in the deployment of renewable energy technologies and efficiency. Meanwhile, China, Germany, and other economic competitors race ahead to dominate the future $2 trillion global cleantech market. It’s time for all of these candidates to stop looking at policies of the past, and create a better vision for our energy future.

Cross-posted from the Center for American Progress. This post was coauthored by Valeri Vasquez, special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

On Sept. 19, President Barack Obama announced his plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years, including raising $1.5 trillion by closing special interest loopholes and other revenue raisers. This includes eliminating $41 billion in tax loopholes for the oil and gas industry [PDF, p. 63] over the next decade.

Big Oil is predictably opposed to losing its unnecessary tax breaks. The American Petroleum Institute, or API, the oil industry’s lobbying muscle, quickly claimed that “the administration plan would hurt jobs and investment.”

But this claim ignores the fact that the big five oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, ExxonMobil, and Shell — have ample financial resources that dwarf the value of these tax breaks. These companies enjoy billions in cash reserves, made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the past decade, and at least one company (ExxonMobil) pays a lower effective tax rate than the average American family.

In other words, Big Oil can readily afford to contribute its “fair share” to reduce America’s debt.

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.

Nonfinancial companies held more than $2 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of June, the Federal Reserve reported Friday, up more than $88 billion from the end of March. Cash accounted for 7.1% of all company assets, everything from buildings to bonds, the highest level since 1963.

The big five oil companies are among those corporations that amassed huge cash reserves. In fact, a Center for American Progress (CAP) analysis of company Security and Exchange Commission filings determined that the three largest American oil companies — Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil — had $27 billion in cash or equivalent assets as of midyear 2011.

BP and Shell, the two largest foreign oil companies that operate in the United States, had combined cash reserves of nearly $32 billion at the end of last year (the latest data available). Added together, these five companies are sitting on cash resources of $59 billion, which is 30 times more than the estimated $2 billion in annual tax breaks that these companies receive.

The past decade was very prosperous for the big five oil companies due in part to high oil prices, including the record of $147 per barrel in July 2008. A CAP assessment determined that these companies made more than $900 billion in profit from 2001 to 2010. High oil prices this year earned them a whopping $67 billion in six months. These funds come from the pockets of American drivers forced to pay up to $4 per gallon for gasoline.

At this rate, Big Oil could easily exceed $100 billion in profits for 2011. Why can’t these companies afford to forgo $2 billion annually in taxpayers’ money?

On Sept. 19, President Obama implored wealthy individuals and corporations to help reduce the deficit, too:

Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get.

Yet at least one oil company, ExxonMobil, has a much better deal than ordinary families. It made $310 billion in profits over the past decade and another $21 billion in the first six months of 2011 alone. A Washington Post expose based on a CAP analysis, however, found that ExxonMobil had a lower effective tax rate than the typical middle-class family. ExxonMobil’s effective tax rate was 18 percent while average households pay 21 percent — 15 percent more than Exxon’s tax rate.

The Post determined that these tax loopholes “have helped make the oil industry one of the most profitable, when measured by cash flow and return on investment.”

API claims that Big Oil needs the tax loopholes to create jobs and make investments. But are the big five oil companies investing these funds in job creation or clean energy? The evidence says no.

“Profits and Pink Slips: How Big Oil and Gas Companies Are Not Creating U.S. Jobs or Paying Their Fair Share,” by the House Natural Resources Committee Democrats, determined [PDF] that Big Oil companies shed jobs over the last five years:

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.

Just in 2010 alone, the big 5 oil companies reduced their global workforce by a combined 4,400 employees, while making a combined $73 billion in profits.

So if the big five companies aren’t hiring additional workers, are they investing in research and development? The Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the companies invested relatively little in overall research and development: “Total R&D expenditure of the five [largest oil] firms in 2010 was $3.6 billion.” This was just 4.7 percent of their $76 billion in profits.

The CRS noted that “it is difficult to determine how much of the R&D spending … was spent on green R&D projects from data published by the oil majors themselves.” These investments would provide financial and energy security for Americans in the grip of the volatile global petroleum market and help mitigate the climate change driven by fossil fuel consumption. But it did compile the information on alternative fuels and cleantech investments provided by the big five companies to the Senate Finance Committee for a May hearing on Oil and Gas Tax Incentives and Rising Energy Prices. It appears that these companies spent a miserly 1.2 percent on alternative fuels and cleantech research in 2010:

This finding confirms a 2009 CAP analysis that determined these companies devoted a mere 4 percent of their collective 2008 earnings
to cleantech research and development. That year was their second-highest profit level.

Clearly the big five oil companies are not investing their huge profits in hiring workers or conducting alternative fuels research and development. Instead, many of these companies use their profits to buy back their own stock, an action that enriches their board of directors, senior executives, and shareholders.

These companies spent slightly more than one-quarter of their profits on stock buybacks in the first half of 2011. This dwarfs the previous year’s investment in research and development (see attached Excel spreadsheet). Yet the big five oil companies still claw to keep $20 billion worth of tax breaks.

President Obama has posed stark choices to reduce the federal budget deficit:

Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.

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.

He proposed that the big five oil companies contribute $20 billion over a decade since these extraordinarily rich companies hold billions of dollars in cash reserves, made nearly $1 trillion in profits, and the biggest of them pays a lower effective federal tax rate than the average American family.

It’s up to Congress to support seniors, students, workers, and middle-class families instead of genuflecting to Big Oil companies and their lobbyists once again.

Cross-posted from Climate Progress. This post was coauthored by Arpita Bhattacharyya, special assistant to distinguished senior fellow Carol Browner at the Center for American Progress.

Checking pollution advisories could become a vital part of your pre-travel planning, along with checking the weather and stopping the mail, if the House of Representatives votes for more than 40 pollution provisions this week.

Simply put, the House could put future vacations at risk in order to keep Big Oil and coal interests happy. It plans to vote on the Interior Environment FY 2012 Appropriations bill, H.R. 2584, which is chock full of provisions that would prolong pollution of the air, water, oceans, and lands of your favorite vacation destinations.

Any one of these special interest provisions in H.R. 2584 is enough to wreck a vacation — from the Grand Canyon to the Great Lakes and Puget Sound; from California’s beaches to the Chesapeake Bay. Taken together, they are an unprecedented assault on public health and public lands, all hidden in an annual spending bill — which is why President Barack Obama promised to veto it.

Here’s how these provisions will impact 10 of America’s favorite vacation spots, with the appropriate section of H.R. 2584 included in parentheses:

Grand Canyon National Park: uranium mining

Photo: Alan English

The threat: One million acres around the Grand Canyon would be opened up to uranium mining, threatening the pristine canyon and polluting the drinking water [PDF] source for more than 25 million Americans. (Sec. 445)

With close to 5 million visitors a year, the Grand Canyon National Park offers camping, raft trips, hiking, and guided tours of one of the seven wonders of the natural world. A provision in the bill would allow mining companies to develop new mining claims that could begin just a few miles away from some of the most popular locations in the canyon. If developed, these claims could severely change the area’s landscape and pollute the Colorado River.