Climate Politics

'Coal makes no sense in this day and age'

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get out the message of "clean coal" through front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, campaign contributions, and an army of lobbyists. But the devastating Dec. 22, 2008, coal ash slurry spill of the Kingston Fossil Plant in rural Tennessee broke through the cacophony of clean coal carolers. The sludge came from "cleaning" coal of toxic metals like arsenic, mercury, and lead so less went into the air. This ThinkProgress Wonk Room video is a stark reminder that in reality, coal isn't clean.

Watch it:

This week the news of progress away from dirty coal has reached a fever pitch:

Labor and environmental leaders come together in D.C. to talk jobs

I’m going to be at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference for the next few days here in Washington, D.C., where environmental activists, labor leaders, and politicos will be discussing how to make those jobs a reality. The Blue Green Alliance, United Steelworkers, and Sierra Club are coordinating the conference. They’re also set to give […]

A proposal to integrate international and domestic climate policy development

Joe Romm is fond (well, maybe "fond" isn't the right word) of saying that there's no way a substantial international climate treaty could get to 67 votes in the U.S. Senate, which is the constitutional requirement for such treaties. And he's right. This is an enormous barrier not only to ratifying but to developing such a treaty -- why should the 150+ countries involved in international climate negotiations deal with us in good faith when they know there's no way we can follow through?

Last week, William J. Antholis and Nigel Purvis of the Brookings Institution offered some intriguing thoughts about how to get around this dilemma.

They propose a "Climate Protection Authority" that would work like so:

First, in consultation with Congress, the president would decide that future climate and energy agreements are to be approved by the United States by statute rather than as treaties. Statutes require a majority in both houses of Congress, whereas treaties require two-thirds of only the Senate. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of bicameral statutory approval of international pacts. In fact, the United States enters into more international agreements this way than by treaty, including some arms control agreements and environmental pacts and almost all trade deals.

Second, Congress should spell out in cap-and-trade legislation the conditions necessary for U.S. participation in new climate and energy agreements. For example, it should describe the role we envision for China, India and other major developing countries.

Third, cap-and-trade legislation should preapprove new climate and energy agreements that meet these congressional preconditions. Agreements that do should come into effect for the United States either without further congressional review or pursuant to the streamlined approval process Congress has used for most trade agreements.

No. 2 sounds a bit high-handed to me. Perhaps India and China might like to have some say in the role the play, no?

But the basic idea -- lowering the barrier to treaty approval and integrating international negotiations into the domestic policy process -- seems well-worth pursuing.

By naming the root cause behind food crises, we stand a chance at solving them

This is a guest post by Cary Fowler, executive director of the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust and co-author of Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity.

-----

Southern Africa, 2030. A throng of emaciated people waits for food rations to arrive. The maize crop has failed, devastated by hot weather and drought. Yet again. A "food crisis?" Yes. That's what we'll call it in 22 years.

But not today. If we want to do something about future food crises, we should name them today, and name them properly. Problems unnamed or improperly named are problems left unsolved.

In many cases, what we call food crises are more precisely thought of as crop-diversity crises. That's what history's most famous "food crisis" -- the Irish potato famine -- really was.

A paper recently published Science -- abstract here -- by a group of scholars with whom the Crop Diversity Trust collaborates, predicts a drop in maize (corn) yields of 30 percent in southern Africa by 2030 as a result of climate change, unless new climate-ready varieties of maize are developed. A huge drop in production of the region's most important food crop will bring instant famine.

Obama taps green Seattle-area leader as deputy secretary of HUD

Ron Sims. The Obama administration has tapped Ron Sims, the county executive of King County, Wash., to serve as deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sims has earned a national reputation for his environmental work in the county, which includes Seattle (home of the Grist mothership). Sims, whom the Obama […]

Michigan governor to outline comprehensive energy plan

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) will use her annual State of the State address tonight to announce that her administration will consider “all feasible and prudent alternatives before approving new coal-fired power plants” in the state. Granholm will also call on the state to reduce by 45 percent its reliance on electric plants powered by […]

Will Barbara Boxer back a big increase in highway funding in the stimulus bill?

Transit advocates are irate at reports from Capitol Hill that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, might support an increase to highway funding in the economic-stimulus bill. The news comes on the same day that Boxer unveiled a rough outline for climate legislation that she intends to push through […]

Sen. Barbara Boxer rolls out her climate policy principles, with very few details

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on Tuesday rolled out six principles for climate legislation that she said would guide the panel’s work on a bill in the 111th Congress. She said she aimed to have cap-and-trade legislation approved by her committee by the end of the year, […]

What do you expect from a party that wants to be more like Sarah Palin?

You can indeed fool some of the people all the time -- if those people are conservatives.

Rasmussen Reports made headlines last month reporting that 41 percent of Americans blame global warming on human activity, down from 46 percent, two years ago. The conservative pollster gleefully noted:

Al Gore's side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

It is, however, the details of the poll that are the most telling. In January 2009:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats.

This compares to December 2006 result:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats say human activity is the cause while 51% of Republicans identify long-term planetary trends as the culprit.

That's right. Slightly more Democrats now understand that humans are the primary cause of global warming, whereas substantially more GOP voters -- a full one-sixth -- have been duped into thinking long-term planetary trends are the cause.

Why the growing divergence?

All your whatever we want are belong to us

Without apparent self-consciousness, The New York Times reports on the galling trend of Bolivians "closely controlling" their country's lithium and "keeping foreigners at bay," since they are "not willing to surrender it."

That's the problem with resources -- there's always a bunch of foreigners between us and what's rightfully ours!