Climate Politics

Government investment in the Midwest will grease the skids for cap-and-trade

The New York Times, in an article entitled, "Geography is dividing Democrats over energy," makes much of an alleged split between policymakers on the coasts, vs. those in the Midwest and Plains states. Somehow coal and manufacturing are grouped together, challenging a concern for global warming:

"There's a bias in our Congress and government against manufacturing, or at least indifference to us, especially on the coasts," said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. "It's up to those of us in the Midwest to show how important manufacturing is. If we pass a climate bill the wrong way, it will hurt American jobs and the American economy, as more and more production jobs go to places like China, where it's cheaper."

Since many, if not most, of my posts attempt to explain why manufacturing and green issues are mutually reinforcing instead of at loggerheads, I find this all very troubling. The problem seems to be that a cap-and-trade policy would make coal more expensive, thus making electricity for manufacturing more expensive. In addition, cap-and-trade might make energy-intensive industries, such as steel and chemicals, more expensive as well.

I think the way to square this circle is to pair cap-and-trade with direct governmental investment to assist coal dependent areas turn to green energy. In other words, if cap-and-trade legislation was passed along with funding to build the wind and solar systems needed to replace the coal plants (and the attendant electrical grid upgrades), then nobody would be worse off. In fact, the Midwest and other manufacturing states would prosper by manufacturing the very wind turbines and solar panels that would be used to replace the coal plants as well as generating any potential on-site solar and wind power. But that would require big bucks from the federal government.

Unless cap-and-trade is accompanied by direct funding for clean energy construction, I'm afraid cap-and-trade will be in big trouble in Congress.

NYT fails to acknowledge the job-creation opportunities from climate legislation

On the front page of Wednesday's NYT, we learned that Midwestern Democrats hate the climate. Or something. The ostensible point of the article was to highlight the geographical split between the climate change policymakers from the Obama administration and the House -- predominantly from the East and West coasts -- and the moderate Midwestern and Plains-state Democrats in the Senate who, according to the NYT, actually care about jobs.

For the record, the article, while admitting that President Barack Obama is, you know, Midwestern, ignored the fact that Ray LaHood and Tom Vilsack, Secretaries of Transportation and Agriculture, respectively, 1) are also from the Midwest, and 2) will have a significant role in devising an economy-wide solution to climate change.

And this is not to underplay the legitimate concerns that representatives from coal-dependent manufacturing states have. But this mostly just points to the greater weakness of the article -- the way it plays into the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe. This from the same newspaper that could write a feature on the tremendous job creation underway in Iowa related to wind-turbine manufacturing, a serious growth industry given that the nearby Plains states are considered the "so-called Saudi Arabia of wind." Keep in mind that enormous wind turbines will likely never be imported from abroad since one of these monstrous steel blades can barely fit on an oversize tractor-trailer much less be flown around the world on a 747. Indeed, the industry's potential for the Midwest led President Obama to visit a turbine factory in Ohio just the other week.

McCain's adviser on the censorship of climate information under Bush

"I don't think there's anything with the Bush administration's censoring of documents that has helped them make their case for their stance on climate change. It's a disgrace. Have the information out, have the debate, and win on the merits. Don't win on the editing process."

-- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to John McCain's failed presidential campaign, at a panel on "Repairing the Republican Brand"

Sierra Club leader discusses plans for his new role as chairman

Last Friday, long-time Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope announced that he is stepping down and moving to a new role as chairman of the group.

The move comes after 17 years at the helm, and just days after a more environment-minded president took office, prompting some to wonder what Pope has up his sleeve. In his new role, he'll be focusing primarily on climate change work, so we dropped him a line to get more details.

Grist: What prompted the change in position now, right after a new president was sworn in who seems likely to be much more sympathetic to green issues?

Carl Pope: The new administration and Congress offer so many opportunities to move our agenda that I wanted to focus more energy on the outside role, and less on management.

Grist: How will your role at the organization change? What will be the relationship between you and the new executive director?

Pope: After the transition, I'll be doing strategy, political, and fund-raising work -- and the new ED will be leading the organization and managing the staff. We'll both report to the board.

Grist: In the new role, you're going to be focusing primarily on climate policy. What are your plans in that area? What do you hope that the new focus will allow you to do?

Pope: We've launched an ambitious Climate Recovery Partnership, with three key goals: cut greenhouse pollution to the level scientists tell us the atmosphere can handle, leverage natural ecosystems to help protect landscapes and human communities during the coming period of unstable climate, and then eventually restore the climate by allowing enhanced forests, soils, grasslands, and oceans to gradually sequester the excess CO2 emitted over the last century. It's the most ambitious, broad-scale program I know of -- and I want to help make very bit of it hum.

All the green policy news I don't have time to write about

• The House is debating the economic stimulus package today, and is likely to vote on it on Wednesday. President Obama was on Capitol Hill on Tuesday lobbying Republican lawmakers to support the bill, though GOP leaders say they are holding out for more tax cuts.

• Meanwhile, mass transit advocates are already miffed that spending for their projects got reduced in favor of more tax cuts. And on the Senate side, the prospects for transit look even bleaker.

• Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) announced on Tuesday that they have formed a Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition caucus in the House of Representatives. In his announcement, Inslee noted that the group recently met with Carol Browner, the new assistant to the president on energy and climate policy, and that the caucus members are working on improving green technology provisions stimulus package. "The melting of the Arctic ice cap is speeding up toward a point of no return and the economy is in turmoil," said Inslee. "We are in need of bold, aggressive action, and that’s exactly what the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition is about."

• Apparently, a pair of Swiss filmmakers is working on a documentary about what happened to Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels.

• The brilliant minds at the Reality Coalition have bought ad space on all misdirected web pages on washingtonpost.com.

• Ed Markey, chair of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming and author of the fuel-economy provision in the 2007 energy bill, sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood on Monday asking him to strengthen the standards.

• The Heartland Institute has scheduled its annual climate change skepticism summit for March 8-10 in New York City, if you'd like to go give yourself an ulcer for a few days.

E.U. leaks details of its proposed Kyoto successor treaty

On Wednesday, the European Commission will release a communiqué outlining the E.U.'s vision for a successor agreement to Kyoto, to be hashed out this December in Copenhagen.

There have been some leaks related to the document, covered in The NYT and elsewhere, but now EurActiv has gotten a draft copy [PDF] to look over. It's got pencil marks on it, so obviously it's preliminary and could change by Wed., but it gives a good sense of the direction E.U. sees things going.

I write book reviews and talk on the radio

Because too much Roberts is never enough:

What seems like a million years ago (I'll never get used to paper media schedules), I wrote a review of Van Jones' new book The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems for In These Times. It's up now, with the somewhat unfortunate headline "It's Not Easy Becoming Green." (Note to eco-headline writers: no more Kermit references; no more inconvenient-anything references; no more "green is the new X.") Of course you'll want to read every scintillating word, but the basic thrust is, Van Jones in person is an unbelievable dynamo who's reshaping the political landscape in extraordinary ways; Van Jones in his book is rather flat and prosaic. With a few exceptions, it's difficult to hear the former's voice in the latter.

In other Roberts news, I appeared on the Liberal Oasis radio show while I was in D.C., discussing prospects for green legislation in coming years. My mellifluous tones and perspicacious insights are available via a variety of electronic delivery options: iTunes / XML feed / MP3. You should subscribe to the podcast -- host Bill Scher is a top notch thinker and communicator.

Obama names clean-energy proponent as acting head of FERC

With so much news in Washington this week, we almost forgot to mention big news at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On Friday, President Obama appointed Jon Wellinghoff to be the acting chairman of the agency, where he will oversee interstate electric transmission, gas transportation, and opening wholesale markets to renewables.

The 59-year-old Nevadan is considered the front-runner for a nomination to the top spot at the agency. "I thank President Obama for the opportunity to lead FERC at a time when our nation faces the challenge of providing consumers with access to clean, renewable energy and ensuring that our nation can deliver that energy in the most efficient, smart and technologically sophisticated manner possible," said Wellinghoff in a statement.

This is exciting news for greens, who are big fans of Wellinghoff, an energy law specialist who has been with FERC since 2006. In December 2007, the U.S. Senate reconfirmed him for a full five-year term. While at the agency he has helped create a new division -- the Energy Innovations Sector -- to investigate and promote new efficient technologies and practices.

In his first full day on the job as acting chief, Wellinghoff stressed the need for automobile manufacturers and electric utilities to work together to integrate electric vehicles into the national grid, according to a Dow Jones report.

Exiting chairman Joseph T. Kelliher praised Wellinghoff's appointment: "Jon has the intelligence, experience, judgment and independence to lead FERC as the agency discharges its historic responsibilities and confronts new challenges." Kelliher, who drew fire during the Bush administration for his involvement with Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy task force, stepped down earlier this month.

Skeptics hope D.C. snow will put the freeze on Gore's testimony

The nation's capital is currently in the grips of Snowpacalypse '09 (meaning, in D.C. parlance, we have about 2 inches of snow on the ground).

Climate skeptics are already giddy about the fact that a) clearly this demonstrates that global warming is a ginourmous lie; and b) it may mean Al Gore's scheduled testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow gets put on hold.

There's a reason Republicans stump for a carbon tax, and it ain't to reduce emissions

This may piss off some people I respect a great deal. Nonetheless, after hearing it in several off-the-record conversations in D.C. last week, I believe it's something that needs to be said publicly:

The 111th U.S. Congress is not going to pass a carbon tax. Calls for a carbon tax, to the extent they have any effect, will complicate and possibly derail passage of carbon legislation.

It's possible that a carbon tax (and/or cap-and-dividend) bill will be introduced. One or both might even make it to a full vote, though I doubt it. But they won't pass. If you want carbon pricing out of this Congress, cap-and-trade is what you're getting. It follows that your energies are best spent ensuring that cap-and-trade legislation is as strong as possible.

Them's the facts.

Through some process I find truly mysterious, the carbon tax has become a kind of totem of authenticity among progressives, while cap-and-trade now symbolizes corporate sellouthood. Across the interwebs, lefties now proclaim with absolute confidence and no small sanctimony that we should entrust our children's future to economists (whose historical contribution to environmental policy has been hostility, doomsaying, and an unbroken record of error) and the Congressional committees that control tax policy (climate champions all). "Pay to pollute," once the scourge of the green movement, is now the sine qua non of keepin' it real. It is baffling.

It doesn't seem to daunt these folks that their hostility toward cap-and-trade and support for carbon taxes has been taken up by a growing cadre on the far right, including Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, economist Arthur Laffer, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and yes, even climate wingnut Sen. James Inhofe (R-Gamma Quadrant). Hell, throw in a refunded gas tax and you get America's Worst Columnist© Charles Krauthammer too. Are we to believe that these folks understand the threat of climate chaos, want to reduce climate emissions the amount science indicates is prudent, and sincerely believe that a carbon tax is the best way to accomplish that goal?