Climate Politics

Clinton taps Todd Stern as her climate envoy

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that Todd Stern will serve as her special envoy for climate change, signaling that the issue will be a key one for her department.

In this role, Stern will be the country's lead climate negotiator at the United Nations and other international summits.

"President Obama and Secretary Clinton have left no doubt that a new day is dawning in the U.S. approach to climate change and clean energy. The time for denial, delay and dispute is over," said Stern at a press conference today announcing his appointment.

"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base," he said. "But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century."

Stern, who served as an adviser to the Obama transition team on environmental issues, was an assistant and staff secretary to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998. He was the senior White House negotiator for the Kyoto negotiations and coordinated the administration's Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999. From 1999 to 2001, he worked at the Department of Treasury as an adviser to the secretary. He was an adjunct lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund after leaving government.

Stern now works as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He drafted a proposal for creating a National Energy Council, an idea published in CAP's Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President. He is also a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where he is the vice chair of the firm's Public Policy and Strategy practice.

Stern's background on both the climate issue and the inner workings of the White House signal that he's likely to play a big role in international negotiations for the State Department, and that it will be a key issue under the new Secretary of State.

Clinton echoed as much in her remarks today: "With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy."

It's an open question, however, how Stern will coordinate his actions with Carol Browner, the White House's top adviser for climate and energy issues.

More on Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard

Now that I've had time to review the legislation [PDF] that begat Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard, I offer a few tidbits.

Short version: We're not even going to pretend that coal is clean or cheap anymore. The bill actually defines "clean coal" as high-sulfur coal, and defines "cheap" as being that which doesn't raise electricity rates too fast.

Specifics:

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.

Poll shows more Americans do not believe global warming is result of man-made activity

Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration's transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.

Video of Obama's press conference on environmental directives

Here's the video of today's Obama press conference on energy and environmental executive orders:

Obama issues a flurry of environment-related orders

President Obama today signaled a stark departure from Bush-era environmental policies with the signing of executive orders aimed at kick-starting the manufacture of more efficient automobiles.

Obama ordered the EPA to reevaluate a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. He also directed the Department of Transportation to act swiftly to establish higher fuel-economy standards, starting with model year 2011.

The president called for significant investment in energy and efficiency measures in the economic stimulus package, and affirmed his desire for the United States to take charge on an international climate change treaty. He also pledged to require U.S. automakers to meet a 35-miles-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2020, as called for in the 2007 energy bill.

Today's executive orders are the "first steps on our journey toward energy independence," Obama said, and would reduce dependence on foreign oil by 2 million barrels a day. Dependence on foreign oil "bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and fuels both sides of the war on terror," he said. This is "compounded by the long-term effects of climate change," he continued, which could result in violence, shrinking coast lines, and environmental catastrophes. "There is nothing new about these warnings. Presidents have been sounding these alarms for decades. Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action."

With regard to California's emissions policy, Obama said the EPA will "determine the best way forward," taking into account the challenges to the auto industry. The Bush administration and other opponents of California's request have argued that granting the waiver would create a patchwork of laws across the country that would make rules difficult to enforce. Though he voiced sympathy to that concern, Obama added that "we must help [the auto industry] thrive by building the efficient cars of tomorrow."

Move would allow California and 13 other states to set tougher tailpipe standards

President Barack Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move quickly on a waiver request from California and 13 other states that want to set higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles, according to a New York Times report citing two administration sources.

The Bush administration denied California's request for a waiver in December 2007, despite evidence that the majority of the Environmental Protection Agency's scientists supported the petition. Bush's EPA head argued that it would result in an unenforceable patchwork of laws around the country.

Obama had promised to reverse the Bush decision during last year's campaign, and on Jan. 21, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols sent letters to the new administration asking them to follow through. In her confirmation hearing, new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that she would reconsider their request.

The New York Times also reports that Obama will direct the Department of Transportation to begin drafting new national automobile fuel-economy regulations in compliance with the December 2007 energy bill. He is also planning to call on federal agencies to begin making government buildings more energy efficient, according to the Times.

The Washington Post also has the story, reporting that White House officials "privately trumpeted [the emissions move] to supporters as 'the first environment and energy actions taken by the President, helping our country move toward greater energy independence.'"

While the Times says Obama's decision will result in quick approval for California emissions waiver, the Post's story has a more conditional tone, saying only that the president has ordered the EPA "to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars which yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions."

UPDATE: Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued this statement Sunday night praising the move: "As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as fast as possible. When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible."

UPDATE: And this from Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope: "This action deserves the loudest applause. President Obama is making good on campaign promises and sending yet another clear signal that global warming and a clean energy economy are top priorities for his administration. By beginning this process and directing EPA to review the Bush administration's lack of action, President Obama is turning the Federal Government into a force for positive change instead of a roadblock."

On Maddow show, Oberstar DeFazio fingers Larry Summers as destroyer of transit spending

You want to know why it's important to have a genuine, intelligent progressive on cable news? Here's why:

Waxman puts utility decoupling in the stimulus

The single most important policy change needed to promote broad-based, California-style energy efficiency is to "decouple" utility profits from sales -- to allow utilities to profit from energy efficiency (see "How does California do it?" and "Why we never need to build another polluting power plant").

Utilities are the most effective delivery channels for making homes, commercial buildings, and industry more energy-efficient, but the vast majority operate under a regulatory regime that penalizes utilities for promoting efficiency. Indeed, those regulations actually motivate utilities to encourage their customers to overuse electricity, because not only do they make more profits then, but if demand rises enough, they can get the Public Utility Commission to approve a new power plant and higher rates -- and thus more profits.

I have been assuming that Democrats would wait until the mother of all energy bills later this year to make their big push toward decoupling. But it turns out that Dems have decided to make it one of the conditions for the multi-billion-dollar energy efficiency block grants in the stimulus (see "Details of Obama's green stimulus plan released").

That is an outstanding idea. E&E Daily ($ub. req'd) has the details:

House Ways and Means embraces refundable renewable tax credits

As Kate reported, the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday passed the energy tax portions of the stimulus package, including:

Investment Tax Credit Refundability. For alternative energy property put into service in 2009 and 2010, companies may apply for a cash grant equal to the value of the investment tax credit from the Department of Energy. DOE must make these grant payments within 60 days of receipt of the application and may not in its discretion deny any such applications that qualify for the credit. Companies may apply for the payments through September 30, 2011. The amount of the ITCs equal 30 percent of the base investment amount for solar, winds, and fuel cell property and equal 10 percent for geothermal and micro-turbine property.

Election of ITC over PTC. For property placed in service in 2009 and 2010, alternative energy companies entitled to the Production Tax Credit can elect to receive the Investment Tax Credit instead. This election would allow them to qualify for the refundability provisions of the DOE grant program.

Awesome! (See "Note to Obama, Congress on green stimulus: No to phony clean coal credits, yes to refundable renewable tax credits, Part 1.")

Why exactly does it matter so much that tax credits for renewable projects can be refundable? That was well explained by a recent Washington Post article: