Climate Politics

Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing

The following is a guest post from Tom Casten, chairman of Recycled Energy Development LLC.

-----

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, along with Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), has introduced legislation calling for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from clean energy by 2025. What will such legislation do to electricity costs?

Most pundits assume the current system is optimal, and thus claim that any mandate to change this "best of all possible worlds" will raise the price of delivered electricity. It is hilarious to think the protected and regulated electric system is optimal, but depressing to realize no one is laughing. Consider two questions:

1. Do market forces drive electricity suppliers to lowest-delivered-cost solutions?
2. What is the delivered cost of clean energy from various generation options?

What market forces? All electricity distribution systems and many generation plants enjoy monopoly protection. Subsidies abound. Profits are guaranteed. Old plants can legally emit up to 100 times the pollution of a new plant. A century of rules reward and protect yesterday's approaches and the resulting vested interests.

Congressman Markey has never seen current generation as optimal, and now that he chairs the relevant subcommittee, he proposes to mandate cleaner and, in our view, cheaper electricity generation. Yes, we said cheaper. Anyone interested in some facts?

Greenpeace assesses the carbon footprint of Obama’s stimulus plan

The Obama administration’s original stimulus proposal would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 61 million tons per year, according to an analysis commissioned by Greenpeace from the consulting firm ICF International. (Here’s the summary report and highlights.) The report estimates that reductions resulting from the Obama plan would be equivalent to eliminating the emissions of […]

Georgia legislator introduces bill that would restrict coal-fired power plants

If Georgia would consider restricting coal, maybe we are stumbling toward a new economic/energy paradigm?

Obama talks tough on the need for investment

“We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face; that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or falling schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an […]

It's official: Nutrition will play a big role in reform at the USDA

After reading Tom Philpott's post on Tom Vilsack's recent comments to the WaPo, I think it's worth digging in a bit more.

To this point, we've all had to be content with reading tea leaves and parsing statements. But now we are finally getting a taste of the tea. Philpott highlighted Vilsack's line about his desire to represent the interests of those "who consume food" -- a long-awaited distinction to be sure.

Of course, claiming to represent eaters is no panacea. The USDA can easily describe its efforts to support a system that provides vast amounts of cheap calories as "helpful" to consumers -- and that kind of disingenuous wordplay would be par for the course at the old USDA. But it appears that Vilsack takes a broader, more progressive view as he pointed out the following:

His first official act was the reinstatement of $3.2 million in grant funding for fruit and vegetable farmers that had been rescinded in the final days of the Bush administration. Though the dollar amount was small, Vilsack said it sent a message of his emphasis on nutritious food.

EPA to drop Bush’s controversial mercury emissions policies and begin new rulemaking process

U.S. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Friday that her agency will begin a new rulemaking process on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, dropping a Bush-era legal challenge that sought to delay such regulations. Jackson said that acting solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler will not pursue the previous administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court, […]

Dueling NPR stories illustrate surreal disconnect around climate discussion

Two NPR stories illustrate one of the most frustrating things about the climate debate. First there's this one, which makes the important and necessary point that the climate problem -- or specifically, the "reducing emissions enough to stabilize the climate" problem -- is much, much bigger than most people understand, and that we're going to have to spend trillions of dollars in coming years if we want to save our asses.

Great, right?

Then the following day we get part two of the story, which says that the sheer size and severity of the problem mean we need a new approach. What new approach? Well, according to Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University, we need to "invent our way out of the problem." Huh? Apparently, that means we don't want any of those nasty, politically difficult policies that raise the price of dirty energy. Those are too hard. "Doomed," he says. Instead he wants a new paradigm:

The players: House and Senate

I’m trying to get a handle on the prospects for federal climate/energy action in the next year or two. Initially I was going to do a quick overview post on it, but the post got way (waaay) out of hand. Now it is many thousands of words and counting, so I’m going to break it […]

Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars

I was chatting the other day with Jack Hidary, chair of SmartTransportation.org, about the "cash for clunkers" bill he's been pushing up on the Hill (watch him debate the bill with all-purpose dumbass Patrick Michaels here).

On balance I'm a big fan of the idea -- offering vouchers toward the purchase of new fuel-efficient cars or transit passes to those who turn in old gas guzzlers -- though there are reasons for caution, well-described by Rob Inglis here. After all, there's a lot of energy and emissions involved in manufacturing new cars. Would removing the oldest of the gas guzzlers still be a net economic and climate gain? It's a subject worth investigating and debating.

You know what isn't worth investigating or debating? You know what policy would absolutely, certainly, no-doubt-about-it suck from both an economic and climate perspective? Just giving people tax money to buy new cars, with no restrictions. You know, just to get more cars made and sold and on the road.

Naturally, the Senate is taking the latter route.

We are ruled by idiots.

US EPA opens public comment period on California emissions waiver

The Environmental Protection Agency administrator announced Friday that the agency is beginning the process of reevaluating the request from California and 13 other states to set tough new automobile emissions standards. The move, announced by EPA chief Lisa Jackson, follows on President Obama’s directive last month that the agency take a look at the issue […]