Climate Politics

Congress starts to outline how they’ll meet Obama’s directive on climate and energy legislation

President Barack Obama issued a directive to Congress in his address on Tuesday night, calling for a climate bill and energy measures. Now we’re getting a clearer ideas from Congressional leaders about how they plan to respond. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that he plans to achieve three legislative priorities to […]

Higher productivity and lower health costs outweigh additional spending

Grist has discussed the consensus among most economists that the net cost of solving the climate crisis will be around 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Basically this consensus says that total expenditures in various greenhouse gas emitting sectors will increase by 1 percent for the same economic output if emissions are controlled.

To be fair to economists, these estimates are based on studies that include substantial increases in energy efficiency -- even count some of the maintenance and capital savings. They are actually taking a stab at following Amory Lovins' dictum to count all costs and benefits.

Nonetheless, I think there are some good reasons why the consensus is wrong about there being a net cost at all. I think the overwhelming evidence is that a climate-stable future will have a higher GDP, even before avoided climate disruption is counted.

The main extra benefits economists overlook are the helpful side effects other than mitigating the climate crisis -- "positive externalities," in economic jargon.

For example, about half of all economic activity takes place in climate-conditioned buildings. Greening these buildings could increase[PDF] productivity [PDF] by around 10 percent. Similarly, switching most long-haul freight trucking miles to long-haul freight rail would increase productivity in transportation. Many energy-saving practices in industry, such as reducing scrapping and reducing spills and other types of emitting stoppages, would increase productivity as well. A switch to wind and solar would reduce labor productivity in the electricity sector; the conventional wisdom is that a switch to organic agriculture would do the same in that sector, though I think this is much less certain that people think. At any rate, sectors where productivity would rise greatly outnumber the tiny sectors where it might fall -- resulting in a huge net increase, probably greater than 5 percent for the economy as a whole.

Another example would be huge benefits to health. Eliminating or greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels would reduce air pollution, water pollution, and exposure to toxics. A switch to organic and low input agriculture would decrease direct ingestion of toxics, and increase available vitamins and minerals in food. Whether such a switch alone would encourage a switch to healthy increase in the consumption of non-starchy vegetables and fresh fruits I don't know, but it certainly could be part of policy that accomplished this. Overall, I think it is almost impossible that switching from fossil fuels to renewables and efficiency, that switching from toxic soil-consuming agriculture to non-toxic soil building agriculture, from unsustainable to sustainable forestry, would not increase GDP.

Two last points.

Sebelius mum on whether she’s leaving Kansas for the Obama team

“I’m going home tomorrow and I’m going to keep fighting some Kansas battles.” — Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, responding to an inquiry about whether she’s planning to join the Obama administration. In the meantime, Sebelius continues to battle two coal-fired power plants in her state.

Georgetown Law opens new climate center with support from governors

Georgetown Law celebrated the opening of its Climate Resource Center on Monday with an event featuring several green luminaries. Govs. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.) and Chris Gregoire (D-Wash.), as well as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Council on Environmental Quality chief Nancy Sutley were on hand for the inauguration of the center, created to help connect […]

Louisiana governor talks energy in his response to Obama’s address

America needs a comprehensive new energy plan, and that plan should include more drilling for oil and gas. That’s the message Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered in the official Republican response to President Obama’s address to Congress on Tuesday night. “To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down,” said Jindal, […]

Obama puts climate and energy atop his priorities list in his first address to Congress

President Barack Obama devoted a significant portion of his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night to energy and environmental concerns, talking up the need for energy investments and calling on legislators to send him a cap-and-trade bill this Congress. “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet […]

Senate finally confirms green-jobs advocate Hilda Solis

From the about damn time files: Senate confirms Hilda Solis as labor secretary. Now, to get to that green jobs work you’ve promised …

Producing a true green 2010 budget

I perused the Green Budget 2010 released last week by a large group of U.S. environmental organizations, including EDF, LCV, NRDC, NWF and WWF. Unable to find a total cost figure for the wish list of federal programs it includes, I assumed this omission stemmed from hesitancy to draw attention to a hefty price tag. After toting up the numbers, this seems not to be the case.

The total cost of the Green 2010 budget is $74 billion, just $4 billion more than the FY 2008 Bush administration budget reference. This is a diddly amount, not even a small down payment on returning environmental programs to parity with pre-Bush administration levels, let alone commensurate with the scale of the terrible risk before us.

The Green 2010 budget deals almost entirely in environmental line items, parsing each federal program as if it were operating in isolation, never addressing the fundamental question of what is required of the federal government. Incremental policy being our raison d'être, this is not a surprise, but the failure to propose obvious budget solutions, such as shifting all fossil fuel subsidies to renewables (what ever happened to Green Scissors?) is perplexing. Nor do important political questions, such as the degree to which particular governmental agencies are beholden to given interests, seem to enter the equation.

I took a whack at constructing a "true green" 2010 budget (using a spreadsheet available here), coming up with a total of $273 billion, which still seems a little light, but in the right the ballpark.

Obama names additional appointments in environmental posts

The White House on Monday announced several additional appointments of interest to enviros, with the biggest being that Interior Department Inspector General Earl E. Devaney has been tapped to serve as the chairman of the new Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board, along with VP Joe Biden. Devaney played a crucial role in investigating the […]

What will Obama say about climate change in tonight’s big speech?

Buzz around D.C. is that President Obama will address climate change and energy policy in his speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night — amid, you know, all those other things weighing on the new commander in chief. And folks are already parsing what it means if Obama includes revenues from the auction […]