Climate Politics

Thousands protest against coal in front of D.C.’s Capitol Power Plant

No one was arrested, but not for lack of trying. An estimated 2,500 people protested outside Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Power Plant on Monday — the nation’s largest act of civil disobedience against coal power. Anti-coal activists from all corners of the country braved the sub-freezing temperatures and six inches of snow the city received Sunday […]

Snow doesn't dampen turnout for anti-coal rally in D.C.

The day's scorecard:

1) Largest anti-coal action yet in the United States: Thousands and thousands of people flooding the streets around the Capitol Hill power plant.

2) Largest demonstration in many years where everyone was wearing dress clothes: The point was to stress that there's nothing radical about shutting down coal-fired power. In fact, there's everything radical about continuing to pour carbon into the air just to see what happens.

3) Smallest counter-protest in world's history: By my count, the Competitive Enterprise Institute managed to muster four demonstrators for its "celebration of coal" rally, which is about the right size. (But they were kind of sweet; they had signs that said: "Al Gore, Not Evil, Just Wrong.")

4) Number of arrests: None, zip, zilch, nada. The police said so many demonstrators showed up that they had no hope of jailing them all. So we merrily violated the law all afternoon, blocking roads and incommoding sidewalks and other desperate stuff, all without a permit or a say so. We shut down the power plant for the day. And we'd pre-won our main victory anyhow, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid preemptively cried uncle last week and announced they were'nt going to burn coal in their plant any more.

5) Quantity of broad smiles afterwards: Almost unlimited. And in the air, there was the strong sense that we can do this. Really. What fun.

Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is co-founder of 350.org, and author most recently of Deep Economy.

Photos of climate and coal protests in D.C.

Three rallies hit Capitol Hill on Monday. First, several thousand young attendees of the Power Shift climate conference rallied on the west lawn of the Capitol before heading off to lobby their representatives. Second, more than 2,000 people gathered for a high-profile protest at the Capitol Power Plant, demanding an end to the burning of […]

Why cap-and-trade requires that Bangladesh evict radical Islamists

David Frum is known as one of the more sensible, policy-oriented conservative writers -- he parted ways with the hyper-ideological National Review over non-lockstep comments about the woeful state of the Republican Party. So I came to his posts on cap-and-trade hoping to find some glimmer of ... something. Maybe hope that there is a way to connect with reasonable conservatives, common ground from which to begin a dialog.

First Frum wrote a post that got virtually everything about the policy wrong. Ezra Klein tried to set him straight. Frum responded with ... more misunderstandings. (Ezra tried again.) In particular I want to focus on two bits:

Yes people can escape the tax by using less electricity. But the tax is still falling on them - they are just feeling its effects in a different form, by reducing their consumption. They are still worse off, just worse off in a different way.

Uh ... there's literally no way to use less electricity without being "worse off"? There's no such thing as energy efficiency?

And then:

(Sorry - I know Ezra will say that the point is to persuade the utilities to rely on windmills instead. But that's energy fantasy, not energy policy!)

There's no such thing as renewable energy either!

I was in the midst of grappling with some reasonable way of responding to someone who doesn't believe in energy efficiency or renewable energy when I came across this comment on the post, from reader sinz54:

There is a big difference here: If an American company dumps waste into the Hudson River, they are hurting mostly AMERICANS. So that's a national problem for our fellow citizens. Whereas if an American company dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is primarily the undeveloped world that will be hurt by it. Unlike America, nearly all of Bangladesh (population 200 million) will be flooded out when the north polar ice cap melts. So we Americans are essentially restricting our economy, and impoverishing our own people, to keep the undeveloped world safe from global warming. Why are we doing them this multi-trillion-dollar favor without them paying us for it? The world cannot control global warming without U.S. cooperation. We should strike a very hard bargain for that cooperation. For example, I would insist that Bangladesh clean up its act and kick *ALL* radical Islamists out of their country before we do anything to keep their country from being flooded. We've got the political leverage. Let's use it!

I am rarely speechless, but ... I really don't know what to say about this stuff. I don't see how a group of people in this universe are going to make it back to the real world in time to create bipartisan climate policy.

'So am I'

I promised an economy run on clean, renewable energy that will create new American jobs, new American industries, and free us from the dangerous grip of foreign oil. This budget puts us on that path, through a market-based cap on carbon pollution that will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy; through investments in wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient American cars and American trucks.

...

I realize that passing this budget wont be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. ... I know that oil and gas companies wont like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

Don't treat the budget like a bill

There's been some amount of disgruntlement regarding President Barack Obama's proposed carbon cap-and-trade system, as laid out in the budget he just submitted to Congress. David really doesn't like the way the administration proposes to handle proceeds from the auction of emissions permits. Brad Plumer objects both to the "timid" emissions cuts baked into the plan as well as to the low estimate for the price of carbon under the proposed system. Meanwhile, Kevin Drum wonders why the revenue estimates are so low.

But Ezra explains it all to you: "this really seems a case where the administration is on the cutting edge of the political conversation, but the political conversation is lagging far behind the severity of the crisis."

Exactly. And the "political conversation" isn't just between Democrats and the GOP. Or between coastal Green State Dems and Midwestern Brown State Dems. Remember that Obama first had to negotiate the split between climate czar Carol Browner's support for cap-and-trade with economics adviser Larry Summers' and OMB head Peter Orzsag's support for a carbon tax. I'm not surprised that the budget stayed light on details.

What's most important are the set of basic assumptions the administration uses (and "assumption" is the right term since it's effectively Congress that designs the plan): an economy-wide carbon market. Check. Auctioning 100 percent of the permits (instead of giving some away to polluters). Check. Rebates for taxpayers. Check. Funding for renewable energy and efficiency. Check. Capping and then reducing emissions to well below 1990 levels by 2050? Check.

The fact is, it's just not wise for the administration to get too deep in the weeds on this. Ezra Klein has observed regarding health care that "the skeletal health plan outlined in [Obama]'s budget has been built to fit the work Congress is already doing on health care reform." Now I don't think you can say that there is quite the same "congressional consensus" on cap-and-trade that there is on health reform. But at least among House Democrats (and hopefully among Democratic Senators) there is an emerging consensus regarding the elements Obama has included.

Former Washington Gov. Locke would bring a strong voice for oceans to Commerce

If President Barack Obama's third choice for Commerce Secretary sticks, we will have a knowledgeable voice as the secretary who oversees much of the nation's oceans management, including fisheries.

Coming from a coastal state, former Washington Governor Gary Locke should appreciate the importance of our oceans to the people of the United States and the health of our nation's economy.

The ideological tensions inside the IPCC gives its reports alarming credibility

Over on DotEarth, Andy Revkin has an interesting post about the "burning embers" diagram from the latest IPCC. The upshot of the story is that several countries well-known for their desire to do nothing about climate change were able to remove an alarming figure from the 2007 report:

The diagram, known as "burning embers," is an updated version of one that was a central feature of the panel's preceding climate report in 2001. The main opposition to including the diagram in 2007, they say, came from officials representing the United States, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

People who argue that the IPCC is an "alarmist" body forget that virtually all of the world's governments belong to it. Thus, governments that don't want to do anything about climate change have just as much input to the report as countries that do.

This tension between the ideological factions of the IPCC actually gives the reports credibility. Only statements that everyone agrees to make it into the report. A few countries that object to some result can keep it out of the report. This is, in fact, why the IPCC process was designed this way.

This is why some people argue that the actual science of climate change is more alarming than that revealed in the IPCC reports. In any event, if you read the IPCC reports and find it alarming, then you can have great confidence that your alarm is warranted.

Kids go crazy for the great taste of climate policy!

I’ve been over at the big Power Shift conference in Washington, D.C. this weekend, where thousands of young adults are here to ignite change on climate change policy. They’ve been holding panels on climate issues, workshops on activism, and training sessions for lobbying Congress. These college and high school students have filled the entirety of […]

Carbon policy = tax cut

A final note about cap-and-trade auction revenue in Obama's budget.

I know some folks (see Sean) object to the whole notion that climate policy should be viewed as a means of raising (and spending) revenue. And there are good policy reasons to fear the conflation.

Still, political reality being what it is, I can't help but think this is a stroke of genius. What you've got now is a tax cut for 95% of American workers, paid for by wealthy industries and individuals. It's flipped the "war on the poor" attack on cap-and-trade completely. Now blocking carbon legislation is a war on the poor.

"Mr. Inhofe, why do you oppose a tax cut that will help so many hard-hit Oklahoma families? Whose interests are you defending?"

Heh.