Climate Politics

Reid to introduce a new bill granting more authority to feds for electricity transmission

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today signaled that energy policy will be a major focus for Congress in the next months, announcing plans to introduce a bill later this week that would give the federal government greater authority in siting electrical transmission lines around the country. “What we’re talking about doing is making it […]

Some thoughts on economists and climate and so forth

The other day in a somewhat tossed-off post I expressed unease at the influence mainstream economists have on climate policy, particularly within the Obama administration. Elsewhere on the green beat you've got people like Chu, who comes out of the science and technology worlds, or Browner, who's been deeply involved in the mechanics of environmental policy implementation for decades -- they are unusual both for their expertise and their ambition around climate and energy. Contrast that to the economic team, which is populated with conventional Rubinites, veterans of the Clinton administration. Their avatar is Larry Summers, who spent Clinton's term pushing back against Browner on climate policy and who has popped up on green radars thus far mainly as the guy who had a hand in cutting back transit funding in the stimulus package. Geithner is basically cut from the same cloth.

It was with all that in mind that I found the notion of a Treasury Dept.-based climate policy team a less-than-thrilling prospect -- my presumption, absent other evidence (and I made it very clear I was just noodling), is that it will be a Summers-esque force for go-slow incrementalism. I probably shouldn't have used the term "mainstream economists," since that's rather imprecise, but anyone who's watched the Obama team take shape knows what I mean.

Anyway, this prompted some substance-free snark over on Common Tragedies, followed by more substance-free snark on Environmental Economics, followed by some substance-free mutual high-fiving in the comments. (This kind of cliquishness will surely help spread the proper respect for the social sciences.)

Still, Adam Stein -- a guy who knows how to mix substance and snark in proper proportion -- is concerned about what he sees as sporadic and inconsistent attacks on economists from environmental quarters. So this is as good an occasion as any to write a post on that subject I've been meaning to write forever. I want to try to get at a few things that bug me about economists the way (some!) economists and economics (often!) tend to manifest themselves in public debates over climate change.

USDA's People's Garden may not be all it's cracked up to be

US Department of Agriculture chief Tom Vilsack may not deserve that recently awarded Grist green thumbs-up after all. Obamafoodorama (blissfully abbreviated as ObFo) has an amusing and edifying (and lengthy) disquisition on Tom Vilsack's much ballyhooed "People's Garden." When Vilsack took a jackhammer to a slab of concrete in front of USDA headquarters in honor of Lincoln's Birthday (the USDA was founded under Lincoln and referred to by him as "the People's Department"), he thought he was demonstrating the USDA's commitment to sustainable landscaping. But he did it without, it appears, much forethought.

The planning process seems to have consisted of one step: "Dig a hole." There's no design for an actual garden to go in its place -- and it certainly was not intended, as many have presumed and now demanded, to be a food garden. The landscape plan that Vilsack brandished in a USDA photo was, according to USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service spokesman Terry Bish, a prop. When ObFo asked about it, Bish said "Oh, that's old. Those are the plans from when [former Ag] Secretary Schafer was planting a tree in the ornamental garden to honor a USDA employee who was killed in Iraq."

In fact, the whole thing was a photo op that got out of hand.

But the goal of the garden changed when it became apparent that there was a groundswell of public interest in a food garden at USDA headquarters.

"Suddenly there was all this interest from the public about vegetables," Mr. Bish said. "It was a sleeper. Sometimes we do these things, and they get really big." He repeated: "There's actually no timeline for the garden. It was all about the Bicentennial. But now we have to come up with ways of maintaining it and to see how we can use it ..."

Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Almost every environmental organization uses this quote at some point. Mead's organizing truth is comforting to those laboring in the activist vineyards, but it is almost precisely opposite the actual approach we have taken, which would more appropriately be written ...

It goes without saying that a small group of thoughtful, committed program officers and professional staff can mold public opinion and shift voting patterns, which should change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing liberals have ever been known to do.

Recent polls show an abrupt decline in public support for environmentalism and concern about global warming, which undercuts the two central assumptions of US environmentalist strategy:

1. our main audience is the general public, to whom we must present a watered down climate story, and
2. our natural base of support is liberal Democrats.

Public support for protecting the environment, according to the recent Pew Center for People & the Press poll fell "precipitously," from 56 to 41 percent in one year, while global warming continued its downward slide, from 38 percent in 2007 to 35 percent in 2008 and 30 percent this year.

Most striking, support for environmental protection by liberal Democrats dropped 17 percent, from 74 to 57 percent, roughly the same rate as Republicans, down 19 percent, and independents, at 15 percent, and significantly higher than the 9 percent drop among moderate Democrats.

Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers?

A source close to Obama once told me, when I asked how serious the White House is about getting a climate bill this year, to watch the budget. If permit auction revenue is included, that should send a clear signal that this was no empty campaign promise.

Obama's budget outline won't be released until Thursday, but the New York Times has an early preview that includes this:

On energy policy, Mr. Obama's budget will show new revenues by 2012 from his proposal to require companies to buy permits from the government for greenhouse gas emissions above a certain cap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the permits would raise up to $300 billion a year by 2020.

This is fairly sketchy. It doesn't say anything about the amount of new revenues projected by 2012, which would be a tip-off about the strength of the targets and the percentage of auctioned permits the administration expects. Perhaps on Thursday we'll get a clearer picture. But at the very least, this is an unmistakable sign that they're serious about a cap-and-trade program with (some) auctioned permits, and soon.

Now, here's a part I'm not as thrilled about:

Since companies would pass their costs on to customers, Mr. Obama would have the government use most of the revenues for relief to families to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would cover his proposals for $15 billion a year in spending and tax incentives to develop alternative energy.

There are lots of fans full rebating (sending back 100 percent of tax or auction revenue to taxpayers) in the Grist community. I am not one of them. I am not even particularly a fan of rebating "most" of auction revenue. The fact is, we need enormous public investments in green energy and infrastructure -- far beyond $15 billion a year. Rebates should be the minimal necessary to compensate those hardest hit by higher energy prices, and the rest of the revenue should go to investments in a green economy. After all, the best way to provide long-term relief to American consumers is to accelerate the clean energy transition.

How biotech companies control research on GMO crops

Recently I wrote about the dwindling faith the American people seem to have in science, seemingly choosing to either ignore or disregard the latest research on global warming. Why has science lost its place in the hearts and minds of America? Has the media been a culprit? Did the Bush administration dismiss one too many scientific reports? But now, a recent article leaves me wondering if science has not only taken a backseat to American thoughts, but a backseat to industry influence as well.

In Thursday's New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because "virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research."

Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements "explicitly prohibit research" and "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry." The effects were clearly stated -- "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology." Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties.

European climate program reduces emissions

A few years back, Europe's cap-and-trade system, called the ETS, was taking a beating in the press. Some of the criticism was legit: the program really did make some silly missteps in the early years.

The biggest bungles were tied up with how the ETS handed out emissions permits. First, they decided to give them out for free -- which, as Sightline has discussed ad nauseum, was a recipe for windfall profits for the firms that got free permits. And second, for lack of reliable emissions data, the ETS handed out more permits than firms actually needed. Ultimately, the glut of permits led to a collapse in the price of carbon, and very little progress in reducing emissions.

But the good thing about making a mistake is that you can learn from it. And that's just what the ETS has done. To fix the windfall problem, nations participating in the ETS have begun auctioning off permits rather than handing them out for free. And now, there's evidence that the ETS has really begun to reduce emissions. The New York Times reports:

In a boost for the system ... a prominent research company, New Carbon Finance, said its calculations showed that the largest cause of a reduction in emissions in the European Union last year was attributable to the trading system -- because it had encouraged greater use of gas in power generation rather than dirtier fuels like coal.

European emissions dropped by roughly 3 percent in 2008.

So it took a little while, but Europe's cap and trade system is having the intended effect: by putting a price on carbon emissions, it's made a meaningful dent in climate-disrupting pollution.

Washington Post is staffed with people who found no mistakes in George Will's denial

After my debunking of George Will's recent column collection of error-filled denier talking points [redundant], it became somewhat of a sport on the internet (see here). I had written:

I don't know whether it is more pathetic that Will believes this or that the Washington Post simply lets him publish this lie again and again.

Now we know it is the latter, thanks to Brad Johnson at WonkRoom, who got this jaw-dropping email from Post ombudsman Andy Alexander:

Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will's column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors.

Paging Woodward and Bernstein. [The CP fact checker notes that Woodward abandoned journalism based on facts, at least checkable facts, many years ago.]

Both of my parents were professional journalists, and I must say that response makes me want to cry. I could understand Will's people stooges signing off on his crap -- they drink from the same pitcher of Kool-Aid. And I could understand if the Post said that they don't fact-check opinion pieces.

But there is no clearer evidence of how far traditional journalism has sunk than that five different editors associated with the Washington Post signed off on a piece that brings to mind Mary McCarthy's famous quip about Lillian Hellman:

Every word she writes is a lie -- including 'and' and 'the.'

I am not going to redebunk Will here point-by-point, but I will excerpt the devastating response to the ombudsman's lazy defense of Will penned by Hilzoy of the Washington Monthly. After you read it, I'm sure you will want to give Andy Alexander (ombudsman@washpost.com) -- "the reader's advocate" -- a piece of your mind (and please do repost it in the comments).

Alexander's original email ends:

Me, in the L.A. Times on Los Angeles' Measure B

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power works hard to exempt itself from renewable energy legislation from Sacramento, and, not coincidentally, it's also the dirtiest utility in the state. About 50 percent of the electricity they sell their customers comes from coal.

So when the utility announced a huge new solar plan, that's all good news, right? The Los Angeles Times asked me for a review of Measure B, a ballot initiative that would enable the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to install 400 MW of solar on land and rooftops within the city. I'm no Hamlet, so I dived into the messy politics, and you can find the piece here.

If you don't hear from me in the next few days, watch this for clues. Been nice knowing you.

Eric Pooley offers nine questions on climate legislation that the press ought to ask Obama

Eric Pooley continues his quest to single-handedly raise the intelligence of mainstream media climate coverage by a factor of ten: Thursday on the Nieman Watchdog site, he lays out "nine climate questions for President Obama" on the upcoming climate bill. I won't attempt to summarize them here. Suffice to say, a) he hits the most important issues, and b) the chances of anyone in the U.S. political press corps asking Obama questions this informed and nuanced are somewhere between slim and nil.

I was going to conclude this post by cleverly pointing out an important question Pooley missed, but I can't think of one. Go read.