Climate Politics

Conservative touts gas tax as cure to all ills, alternative to other climate/energy policies

The Weekly Standard cover story last week was by Charles Krauthammer: "The Case for a Net-Zero Gas Tax." Joe Klein calls it "an absolutely compelling, and completely unexpected, argument" and the tax itself "without doubt, the most elegant way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil."

Your honor, I object.

First off, it isn't unexpected -- Krauthammer has argued for a gas tax before. And you'll notice that more and more conservatives are popping up in favor of refunded gas or carbon taxes. (See, e.g., here.)

Second of all, it isn't particularly compelling. In fact, it's full of howlers. More on that later.

Third of all, re: "elegant," I can't speak to its aesthetic appeal, but a gas tax is most certainly not the fastest or cheapest way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

Fourth of all, if you find yourself agreeing with Charles Krauthammer, one of the most vicious, mendacious soldiers in the right-wing chickenhawk brigade (see, e.g., here for his argument for torture), it's time for some soul searching.

After all, Krauthammer is quite clear that he views a gas tax as an alternative, not a compliment, to government investments or regulations. Indeed, he seems to think a $1 gas tax would single-handedly drop U.S. oil use, cut world oil prices, cripple hostile regimes, and make the U.S. energy independent. And maybe increase your sex appeal. And it could do all this while obviating or eliminating other environmental policies.

On regulation:

Paulson brags on his delayer boss

This 'graph on the WSJ blog just about made me choke:

Of course, the obsession over what do to with developing countries -- especially China -- is one of President Bush's biggest environmental legacies, Secretary Paulson said, continuing the administration's week-long farewell tour. By relentlessly focusing on the role of developing-world emissions, President Bush "changed the debate," Sec. Paulson said.

Two points. First, the strategy of delaying U.S. action on climate change by recourse to fear-mongering about China and India is not a Bush invention. Conservatives (and, er, Democrats) have been pulling that crap since the '90s. That was the basis for the Senate rejecting Kyoto via the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

Second, it is true that Bush has kept this delaying tactic at the center of the national debate. What is truly mystifying is why a Bush administration official who purports to be concerned about climate change would boast about it.

No leaky

From a story on Congressional tensions with Obama comes the news that the transition team apparently didn't tell anyone in that body about its upcoming cabinet choices:

Sutley testifies before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, also appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning, along with EPA-nominee Lisa Jackson. Sutley, 46, is currently the deputy mayor for energy and environment for the city of Los Angeles.

Here an excerpt from Sutley's prepared opening statement on her plans for the CEQ:

My focus, if confirmed as the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, will be to ensure that there is a strong science and policy basis for our environmental policy, to move the nation to greater reliance on clean energy and increase energy security, to combat global warming while growing the green economy, to protect public health and the environment, especially in vulnerable communities, and to protect and restore our great ecosystems.

My parents came to the United States in search of a better life. I learned the values of hard work and integrity from them. They also taught me how important it is to give back to the community, and I have devoted much of my career to public service. I have tried to honor those values by working toward protecting our communities and our environment. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the Congress to carry out the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act and the mission of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Confirmation hearing for Obama's EPA pick kicks off

Lisa Jackson, President-elect Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is appearing this morning before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for her confirmation hearing. Jackson, 46, has been the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection since Feb. 2006.

While she's expected to get a mostly warm reception from senators -- even climate skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.) has had nice things to say about her -- it's also likely that contentious issues like perchlorate and criticisms about Jackson from some New Jersey environmentalists will be raised.

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, will also appear before the committee this morning, following Jackson.

Here are some key excerpts from Jackson's prepared opening remarks pertaining to her plans for the U.S. EPA:

Science must be the backbone of what EPA does. The environmental and public health laws Congress has enacted direct the EPA administrator to base decisions on the best available science. EPA's addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the agency's career scientists and independent advisors.

If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policy-makers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.

And here's her take on environment vs. economic development:

The president-elect strongly believes responsible stewardship of our air and water can live side-by-side with robust economic growth. Done properly, these goals can and should reinforce each other.

The president-elect's environmental initiatives are highlighted by five key objectives: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions; reducing other air pollutants; addressing toxic chemicals; cleaning up hazardous-waste sites; and protecting water. These five problems are tough, but so is our resolve to conquer them.

What Obama's picks signal for urban policy

Who are President Obama's key urban policy advisers? What do his pickes for Housing and Urban Development and Transportation say about an Obama urban policy?

No to phony clean coal credits, yes to refundable, renewable tax credits

The green stimulus is beginning to take shape with mostly good stuff in the stocking, except one big lump of coal.

The package is getting bigger -- no surprise. The Washington Post writes:

Congressional leaders and Obama advisers are looking at including as much as $25 billion of energy tax credits in the economic stimulus package in an effort to bolster renewable energy projects, fuel-efficient cars and biodiesel production, said sources familiar with the negotiations ...

The main elements under consideration include a two-year, $8.6 billion extension of the production tax credit [PTC] for renewable energy, an item that favors wind power projects. Obama advisers are considering a proposal from the wind and solar industry that would make those credits refundable or count them against past taxes because many financial firms that provided capital for those projects no longer have taxable income and can't use the credits.

I understand why only a two-year PTC extension is being floated from a narrow stimulus perspective, but seriously, people, it's time for a much longer extension to give the industry firmer ground. The solar investment tax credit got an eight-year extension last year! Is there any possibility that an Obama administration with a Democratic Congress won't eventually extend the PTC that long? So don't play games with the industry. The idea of making the credits refundable is an important one I will elaborate on in part 2.

The bill could also include tax credits for service stations that install high-ethanol-content fuel pumps, a $7,500 tax credit for plug-in vehicles, an extension of the biodiesel credit, and one for coal-fired power plants that capture more than half of their carbon emissions or that could be retrofitted to do so later. There could also be clean-energy credits for rural cooperatives.

Apparently someone missed the memo that plug-ins already have a $7,500 tax credit -- which in any case won't be doing much stimulating since there aren't any plug-ins to stimulate!

Memo to Dems: Please, please, please, do not give a tax credit to any coal-fired plants "that could be retrofitted" for capturing carbon. So-called "capture ready" coal plants are nothing but snake oil, just like clean coal itself.

Congress does not want to be in the business of trying to pass regulations to determine how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin whether it might be easier or harder for some new climate-destroying coal plant to some day integrate carbon capture. Either a new coal plant captures and permanently sequesters the vast majority (not just half) of its carbon emissions now, or it should not be permitted in the first place. Stop trying to fool the public into thinking we can risk building any more new coal plants with unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot.

One of the most exciting stimulus proposals is aimed at boosting clean-energy financing during this credit crunch:

Landrieu serves up monologue on oil during DOE confirmation hearing

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) made two of the more aggressively pro-drilling arguments during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary-nominee Steven Chu. Neither was totally related to Chu's testimony, but both were, er, colorful.

First, Landrieu disputed Chu's citation of the fact that the United States contains only three percent of the world's oil supply, arguing that she believes there is more oil available domestically:

I listened with interest to your comments to Senator Murkowski about the known inventory in the United States of oil and gas and just wanted to point out that the emphasis is on the word known because we believe, many of us, that there are great resources that have yet to be discovered based on the fact that there's never been a comprehensive technology-driven inventory taken of oil and gas resources.

So one of the things that our chairman has been leading the effort and to some degree of success with my support and others, has been to push the United States government on behalf of the taxpayers who might be interested to actually know how much oil and gas they have. And so with so much off limit in the past and with limited access to just look, I would just urge you to be careful about the comment about four percent. It is true. We have four percent of the known reserves, but there is great evidence to suggest that there are lots of reserves that are unknown.

Her second remark pertained to pirates:

EPA nominee to be asked about regulating perchlorate in drinking water

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.org. It was written by Joaquin Sapien.

-----

In the latest volley of a years-long battle involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the military and the White House, the EPA announced last week that it will delay its decision on whether to set a drinking water standard for perchlorate, a chemical in rocket fuel that has been found at harmful levels in drinking water across the country. The announcement that the EPA won't act until it receives advice from the National Academy of Sciences puts the contentious decision onto the already-heavy regulatory agenda awaiting Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the EPA.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, has promised to raise the issue of perchlorate at Jackson's confirmation hearing tomorrow. Boxer has called the EPA's decision "to walk away from this problem and shrug off this danger...immoral."

The EPA estimates that as many as 16.6 million Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of perchlorate, which studies link to thyroid damage that can slow brain development in children.

Jackson, former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, is no stranger to the perchlorate controversy. New Jersey was urged to regulate [PDF] the chemical in October 2005 by a panel of state scientists, environmental activists and industry leaders. But three years later, the DEP still hasn't completed a draft of the rule.

The panel made its recommendation after a statewide study revealed that unsafe levels of perchlorate had been found in six of 123 public water systems the state sampled in 2004. Each of those water systems serves more than 10,000 people [ PDF, p. 41].

Jackson's predecessor, Bradley Campbell, promised to propose a perchlorate standard for drinking water by Jan. 31, 2006. But when Jackson moved from assistant commissioner to commissioner in February 2006, that deadline had passed. Standards were still being discussed last month, when Jackson left the DEP to become chief of staff for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

New Jersey DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said the three years it has taken the DEP to develop a perchlorate regulation is not "atypical" and that the rule is now being reviewed by DEP's legal department and by the state's attorney general.

Renewable energy industries lobby for more flexible tax credits

Renewable energy advocates are enthused by Barack Obama's call to double the production of clean, domestic energy and create three million jobs in the sector, but they don't think he'll be able to pull it off unless he backs two changes to the tax code -- changes they say will help spur millions more jobs in the wind and solar industries.

Right now, the tax credits for solar and wind energy (yes, the much-beleaguered credits that were finally slipped into the October bailout of the financial markets) are not refundable -- that is to say, a producer only gets the money back if it makes a profit. Problem is, given the economic downturn, not many renewable energy companies are making money. That means the tax credits aren't helping them. The solar and wind industries would like the renewable tax credits to become refundable, which would offer rebates even to companies that aren't making money.

Obama has said his stimulus plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, but neither the investors nor the lenders who would normally provide the upfront funding for start-up renewable projects are feeling confident enough to do so right now. It also doesn't help that some major financial backers of renewable projects -- like Lehman Brothers -- have gone under in recent months.

"Lehman goes away, and many other banks have suffered major losses because of the sub-prime crisis, and because they're suffering these huge losses they don't have much tax liability," Chris O'Brien, head of market development and government relations for North America at the Swiss company Oerlikon Solar, told Grist. "They don't need more losses, so their appetite for investing in solar projects has gone way down at a point in time where the interest in and the need for tax equity has gone way up."

Another idea floating around the Hill is for the stimulus plan to put $10 billion into a "National Clean Energy Lending Authority" that could lend to renewable projects and help support homeowners who want to retrofit. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) wrote a letter to Obama this week asking him to support something like this. "The current financial crisis has not only thrown us into recession, it has significantly derailed or killed off virtually every alternative energy project in the pipeline, making renewable energy yet another victim of the economic fallout," they wrote.