Climate Politics

Jamming coal subsidies into every conceivable spending vehicle

"He wants it as big as possible. He's going to just keep working for more and more and more money for this."

-- Jamie Smith, communications director for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who's busy trying to get even more "clean coal" subsidies into the stimulus bill

What gas taxes don't do

Surprising: state gas taxes appear to have very little effect on either driving habits or fuel consumption. More precisely, there's no correlation between a state's gasoline tax and the amount of fuel its residents use or the amount of driving they do.

Don't believe me? Feast your eyes on these babies:

And:

Those are big, fat, completely uncorrelated blobs. What you're seeing is all 50 states plus D.C. plotted to show a relationship between state gas tax rates and per capita fuel consumption (in the first chart) and per capita miles driven (in the second chart). There is essentially no relationship whatsoever.

When to change that light bulb

"Often when I'm on TV, they'll ask what are the three most important things for people to do [to stop global warming]. I know they want me to say that people should change their light bulbs. I say the number one thing is to organize politically; number two, do some political organizing; number three, get together with your neighbors and organize; and then if you have energy left over from all of that, change the light bulb."

-- writer and activist Bill McKibben

Obama administration on green investment

From the energy & environment agenda on the spiffy new White House website:

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Not create but help create jobs -- government as partner, not mommy or daddy.

Not just spending but strategic investment -- emphasizing positive rate of return rather than cost.

Not replace but catalyze private efforts -- use government to nudge markets in the right direction.

Not return to pre-industrial Nature but build a clean energy future -- active not passive, ahead not backward, implying work (build) and thus jobs.

They're just good at this stuff.

LaHood on the auto industry and Obama's clean-car moves

"The car manufacturers knew this was coming. I don't think you're going to see them get a lot of heartburn over this."

-- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on President Obama's announcement that his administration is moving toward stricter regulation of auto fuel economy

How will EPA move forward on revisiting Calif. waiver?

Now that President Obama has directed regulators to revisit California's request for a waiver to set higher tailpipe emissions standards, what's next?

A statement from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson wasn't too revealing on the process for revisiting and approving the waiver: "Knowing EPA has the full support of the President as we proceed to revisit the Bush era denial of the California waiver is very encouraging. The President's actions today herald a sea change in America's commitment to addressing climate change."

Jackson had already promised as much in her confirmation hearing, so this isn't terribly enlightening. Attempts to get more, er, details out of an EPA spokesperson were unsuccessful. Luckily, the agency has put together this handy guide to waivers. One tidbit:

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air-pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government's. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California's rules may go into effect. Once California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a notice for public hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written comment period typically remains open for a period of time after the public hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and the administrator determines whether California has satisfied the law's requirements for obtaining a waiver.

Under the Clean Air Act's Section 209, the EPA is supposed to grant a waiver unless it finds that California "was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards." Other reasons for rejecting a waiver are if the state "does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," or if the state's policy conflicts with other sections of the act.

Because the Bush administration's EPA already went through the entire process of reviewing the information on this waiver, it's unlikely that Obama's team will have to go through that again; the science and the law haven't changed (despite the Bush administration's best efforts). According to David Doniger, the policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, the most likely scenario is that Jackson and her staff review the previous records and come to their own determination about whether to grant the waiver.

NYT's Revkin seems shocked by media's own failure to explain climate threat

Who determines the set of ideas the public is exposed to -- and how they are framed? The national media.

The media's choices are especially important in a decade when the Executive Branch -- the principal force for setting the national agenda -- was run by two oil men who actively devoted major resources to denying the reality of climate science, ignoring the impacts, and muzzling U.S. climate scientists.

Yet the national media remains exceedingly lame on the climate issue, as a searing critique by a leading U.S. journalist details (see "How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics"). The media downplay the threat of global warming (and hence the cost of inaction). And they still hedge on attributing climate impacts to human action.

This criticism extends to our premier reporters, such as the New York Times' Andy Revkin. Indeed, I (and dozens of other people) have an email from last week that Andy sent to Mark Morano (denier extraordinaire staffer for Senate denier extraordinaire James Inhofe). Andy asserts:

I've been the most prominent communicator out there saying the most established aspects of the issue of human-driven climate change lie between the poles of catastrophe and hoax.

Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, "A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate," that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The "middle stance" is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax -- which is why I call them denier-eq's.

Now if the top NYT reporter is pushing the mushy middle -- if he writes things like "Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans, if his stories have online headlines like Arctic Ice Hints at Warming, Specialists Say -- why on Earth would it be news that the public is itself stuck in the mushy middle?

And yet in both the NYT article and his blog, Revkin makes a huge deal of a poll that, if anything, merely reveals how bad the media's coverage of the issue is. His blog post, "Obama Urgent on Warming, Public Cool" and his article, "Environmental Issues Slide in Poll of Public's Concerns," completely misframe the issue. Let's start with the blog:

Report says Lisa Heinzerling to join EPA as climate adviser

More big news out of EPA today: The legal mind behind one of the most important environmental cases of the past decade appears to be headed to the EPA to advise Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate change issues, according to a published report.

Joining Jackson's team will be Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the lead author of the plaintiffs' briefs in Massachusetts v. EPA, the court case settled by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Via TPMDC, here's the Carbon Control News ($ub req'd) report on the news:

In the Supreme Court case, Heinzerling was the lead author of arguments from a coalition of environmentalists and states claiming EPA had a legal obligation to address greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The court agreed, and EPA has been struggling for the past several years on how to fulfill that obligation. Heinzerling's presence at EPA could help the agency craft climate change policies and potential regulations that conform with the high court ruling and can withstand future legal challenges.

The EPA press office would not confirm the Heinzerling news, saying only that Jackson "is building a team to help implement the President's environmental agenda and it will be announced shortly." Heinzerling's voicemail recording at Georgetown says she is on a two-year leave from the school because she has "taken a position in the new administration." Georgetown Law officials declined to comment.

If the news is confirmed, it will be a significant development, considering that the EPA is going to have to follow through with the endangerment finding mandated by the Supreme Court in that case. The Bush administration refused to make a finding, but Jackson has pledged to complete the work. At her confirmation hearing earlier this month, Jackson said that the endangerment finding "will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country."

Adopting tougher emissions standards, new eco-label in Washington

California gets all the glory. As Kate mentioned, President Obama has ordered the EPA to reconsider a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. It's that "13 other states" phrase that should be most important to Puget Sound readers, as Washington is one of the bunch.

Along with Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, Washington has pledged to adopt California's standards, which would aim to reduce vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent by 2016.

So what has to happen here once the California waiver is OK'd? Well, technically, nothing. Once those stricter standards are approved for California, they'll go into effect here in Washington, starting with the 2011 model year vehicles (which you'll start to see on dealer lots next year). That is, unless state courts get involved. According to Sandy Howard of Washington's Department of Ecology, there are still some pending state lawsuits that could affect the overall outcome.

Well, if we can't force automakers to build greener cars, how about shaming consumers into buying greener cars?

EPA administrator details her priorities to staffers

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a memo on Friday highlighting her top priorities for the agency and the philosophy she will use in setting policy.

"Science must be the backbone for EPA programs. The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science," she wrote. "The President believes that when EPA addresses scientific issues, it should rely on the expert judgment of the Agency's career scientists and independent advisors. When scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted by political agendas, Americans can lose faith in their government to provide strong public health and environmental protection."

Jackson took a specific swipe at the Bush administration's policies in this regard. "The laws that Congress has written and directed EPA to implement leave room for policy judgments," she said. "However, policy decisions should not be disguised as scientific findings. I pledge that I will not compromise the integrity of EPA's experts in order to advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome."

She also outlined her top five issues:

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has pledged to make responding to the threat of climate change a high priority of his administration. He is confident that we can transition to a low-carbon economy while creating jobs and making the investment we need to emerge from the current recession and create a strong foundation for future growth. I share this vision. EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President. As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing EPA's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.

• Improving air quality. The nation continues to face serious air pollution challenges, with large areas of the country out of attainment with air-quality standards and many communities facing the threat of toxic air pollution. Science shows that people's health is at stake. We will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand.

• Managing chemical risks. More than 30 years after Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act, it is clear that we are not doing an adequate job of assessing and managing the risks of chemicals in consumer products, the workplace and the environment. It is now time to revise and strengthen EPA's chemicals management and risk assessment programs.

• Cleaning up hazardous-waste sites. EPA will strive to accelerate the pace of cleanup at the hundreds of contaminated sites across the country. Turning these blighted properties into productive parcels and reducing threats to human health and the environment means jobs and an investment in our land, our communities and our people.

• Protecting America's water. EPA will intensify our work to restore and protect the quality of the nation's streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers. The Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, to address our neglected urban rivers, to strengthen drinking-water safety programs, and to reduce pollution from non-point and industrial dischargers.