Climate Politics

Vilsack continues to lay the groundwork for reform

There was some curiosity as to what stance U.S. Department of Agriculture chief Tom Vilsack would take in his speech this week before the National Association of Wheat Growers. Surprisingly, he came as the bearer of bad tidings. According to this report:

Vilsack called on farmers to accept the political reality that U.S. farm program direct payments are under fire both at home and abroad and therefore farmers should develop other sources of income. In his remarks to the groups he said he intends to promote a far more diversified income base for the farm sector, saying that windmills and biofuels should definitely be part of the income mix and that organic agriculture will also play an increasing role.

Um, what? Leave aside the "prepare for a pay cut" thing for a moment. Did Vilsack just use the O-word in front of a bunch of large-scale industrial farmers? Once they stopped laughing, I wonder if they starting thinking about the implications of what he was saying. Maybe this guy is for real.

Vilsack's comments certainly jibe with his plans for the new USDA Office for Ecosystem Services and Markets -- an entity that is charged with cataloging the climate impacts of forestry and farming practices. The Christian Science Monitor characterized it thusly:

In Virginia, Big Coal beats efficiency by one vote

At the beginning of the week, I wrote over at Huffington Post about how the State of Virginia could be poised to take significant action to bolster the economy and help the climate by passing an energy efficiency bill introduced by State Senator Donald McEachin.

Psych!

As reported by Lauren Glickman at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Democratic Majority Leader Dick Saslaw from the Northern Virginia suburbs cast the tie-breaking vote to keep green jobs out of his state. For Saslaw, Virginia is apparently for unemployment ... and pollution.

Not surprisingly, Saslaw has received more money from Dominion Power, the state's leading burner of coal fired energy, than any other legislator since 2004.

Perhaps if these were normal times, this would be just another story of polluter influence. But in these extraordinary -- and extraordinarily tough -- times, it's something more. Article XI, a great new Virginia blog, reports that the bill would "save Virginians approximately $15 billion on electric bills by the year 2025," creating thousands of jobs. Investing in energy efficiency produces more than two and a half times the number of jobs as investments in coal.

Opposing energy efficiency means killing jobs -- something that Saslaw will have to take home to his constituents -- and everybody in Virginia who was hoping the Democratic leadership would actually stand up for jobs and an end to polluter corruption. You can call Saslaw and let him know how you feel about his vote at 804-698-7535.

What are the prospects for climate legislation in the House?

I think Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Waxman (D-Calif.) may be making both a strategic and a tactical mistake in pushing to get a climate bill out of committee by Memorial Day. I say this as someone who was delighted that Waxman defeated Dingell for the chairmanship.

Strategically, as an extended must-read analysis in E&E Daily ($ub. req'd, reprinted below) explains:

... in the Energy and Commerce Committee, it is often stated that a legislative victory there foretells success when the bill reaches the entire House. "If you do it in committee, I think you do a huge amount of what you need to do for the floor," said Manik Roy, vice president of federal outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Obama isn't going to see a climate bill on his desk this year (see here). Even Speaker Pelosi was originally skeptical the House would pass cap-and-trade this year.

Obama certainly isn't going to devote a lot of time and political effort to raising the issue's profile in the next three months -- nor should he.

So why push such an important and difficult vote before the ground has been laid for it, when you will be operating with one hand tied behind your back? At a time when the administration, public, and media are focused squarely on the greatest economic mess since the Great Depression? Even if Waxman succeeds under such circumstances, he may be stuck with a weaker bill than he otherwise could have gotten.

I will explore what I see as Waxman's tactical mistake -- trying to put energy legislation into his climate bill -- in a later post.

Here is the full E&E Daily story:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders urge action to avoid deforestation

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called on Monday for action to prevent deforestation and thereby slow down climate change. Clearing and burning forests accounts for 20 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. “There’s no point in words. It’s time for action,” Kerry told the crowd […]

Obama talks tough on energy in first prime-time press conference

President Obama had some firm words for critics of his economic stimulus plan in his first presidential news conference on Monday night, using some of his most forceful comments to defend the green energy investments in the plan. “Why would that be a waste of federal money?” asked Obama. “We’re creating jobs immediately by weatherizing […]

Today's leftovers

A couple of notable things today that I won't be able to give the time they deserve:

• Brad at the Wonk Room notes that the self-styled Senate "centrists" who carved $100 billion 600,000 jobs out of the stimulus bill -- under the guise of "cutting the fat" -- managed to protect a $50 billion boondoggle for nuclear power, water down loan guarantees for renewable energy and grid projects, and boost subsidies to dirty energy. Nice work, "centrists."
• Amory Lovins has a guest post on the NYT's Freakonomics blog, making his familiar case that small and smart beats big and powerful when it comes to electricity generation. The comments reflect all the usual misunderstandings Lovins encounters, including the comical demand that he supply statistics to back his case. Whatever Lovins' faults, lack of statistics isn't one of them. He's even quantified the number of hidden economic benefits of micropower: there are exactly 207!
• Huzzah to Keith Johnson at the WSJ's energy blog for making a point that is too-little understood by the broader body politic: dirty power is "cheaper" than clean power because dirty power doesn't pay for its full costs. This seems incredibly basic and obvious to people who have been studying and writing about energy for a while, but it still hasn't really penetrated the public conversation. Witness the outbreak of dumbassery in the WSJ comments.
• David Sirota makes a good point: if you tax energy companies to fund good things, you make those good things dependent on energy companies -- perversely, you strengthen the political hand energy companies can play. Careful how you use tax revenue.

And that was just from today!

The players: Obama’s people

Obama’s green team Joe Romm says, “I honestly don’t know if it is politically possible to preserve a livable climate — but if it is, these are the people to make it happen.” I don’t know if I’d go that far, but Obama has certainly put together a team capable of great things. Coordinating is […]

Green spending cuts still on table in Senate, more…

The Senate is likely to vote Tuesday to move forward with the stimulus package. The fate of the package, now weighing in at $827 billion in new spending and tax cuts, rests on whether or not senators OK a bipartisan compromise amendment from Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). As we reported last week, […]

Bingaman unveils draft of renewable energy standard

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is passing around a discussion draft [PDF] of a renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that will be taken up by his committee this week. The bill would require 4 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2011, scaling up to […]

Al Gore = Hitler?