Climate Politics

Obama's budget contains carbon auction revenue, but how much will be rebated to consumers?

A source close to Obama once told me, when I asked how serious the White House is about getting a climate bill this year, to watch the budget. If permit auction revenue is included, that should send a clear signal that this was no empty campaign promise.

Obama's budget outline won't be released until Thursday, but the New York Times has an early preview that includes this:

On energy policy, Mr. Obama's budget will show new revenues by 2012 from his proposal to require companies to buy permits from the government for greenhouse gas emissions above a certain cap. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the permits would raise up to $300 billion a year by 2020.

This is fairly sketchy. It doesn't say anything about the amount of new revenues projected by 2012, which would be a tip-off about the strength of the targets and the percentage of auctioned permits the administration expects. Perhaps on Thursday we'll get a clearer picture. But at the very least, this is an unmistakable sign that they're serious about a cap-and-trade program with (some) auctioned permits, and soon.

Now, here's a part I'm not as thrilled about:

Since companies would pass their costs on to customers, Mr. Obama would have the government use most of the revenues for relief to families to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would cover his proposals for $15 billion a year in spending and tax incentives to develop alternative energy.

There are lots of fans full rebating (sending back 100 percent of tax or auction revenue to taxpayers) in the Grist community. I am not one of them. I am not even particularly a fan of rebating "most" of auction revenue. The fact is, we need enormous public investments in green energy and infrastructure -- far beyond $15 billion a year. Rebates should be the minimal necessary to compensate those hardest hit by higher energy prices, and the rest of the revenue should go to investments in a green economy. After all, the best way to provide long-term relief to American consumers is to accelerate the clean energy transition.

How biotech companies control research on GMO crops

Recently I wrote about the dwindling faith the American people seem to have in science, seemingly choosing to either ignore or disregard the latest research on global warming. Why has science lost its place in the hearts and minds of America? Has the media been a culprit? Did the Bush administration dismiss one too many scientific reports? But now, a recent article leaves me wondering if science has not only taken a backseat to American thoughts, but a backseat to industry influence as well.

In Thursday's New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because "virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research."

Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements "explicitly prohibit research" and "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry." The effects were clearly stated -- "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology." Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties.

European climate program reduces emissions

A few years back, Europe's cap-and-trade system, called the ETS, was taking a beating in the press. Some of the criticism was legit: the program really did make some silly missteps in the early years.

The biggest bungles were tied up with how the ETS handed out emissions permits. First, they decided to give them out for free -- which, as Sightline has discussed ad nauseum, was a recipe for windfall profits for the firms that got free permits. And second, for lack of reliable emissions data, the ETS handed out more permits than firms actually needed. Ultimately, the glut of permits led to a collapse in the price of carbon, and very little progress in reducing emissions.

But the good thing about making a mistake is that you can learn from it. And that's just what the ETS has done. To fix the windfall problem, nations participating in the ETS have begun auctioning off permits rather than handing them out for free. And now, there's evidence that the ETS has really begun to reduce emissions. The New York Times reports:

In a boost for the system ... a prominent research company, New Carbon Finance, said its calculations showed that the largest cause of a reduction in emissions in the European Union last year was attributable to the trading system -- because it had encouraged greater use of gas in power generation rather than dirtier fuels like coal.

European emissions dropped by roughly 3 percent in 2008.

So it took a little while, but Europe's cap and trade system is having the intended effect: by putting a price on carbon emissions, it's made a meaningful dent in climate-disrupting pollution.

Washington Post is staffed with people who found no mistakes in George Will's denial

After my debunking of George Will's recent column collection of error-filled denier talking points [redundant], it became somewhat of a sport on the internet (see here). I had written:

I don't know whether it is more pathetic that Will believes this or that the Washington Post simply lets him publish this lie again and again.

Now we know it is the latter, thanks to Brad Johnson at WonkRoom, who got this jaw-dropping email from Post ombudsman Andy Alexander:

Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will's column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors.

Paging Woodward and Bernstein. [The CP fact checker notes that Woodward abandoned journalism based on facts, at least checkable facts, many years ago.]

Both of my parents were professional journalists, and I must say that response makes me want to cry. I could understand Will's people stooges signing off on his crap -- they drink from the same pitcher of Kool-Aid. And I could understand if the Post said that they don't fact-check opinion pieces.

But there is no clearer evidence of how far traditional journalism has sunk than that five different editors associated with the Washington Post signed off on a piece that brings to mind Mary McCarthy's famous quip about Lillian Hellman:

Every word she writes is a lie -- including 'and' and 'the.'

I am not going to redebunk Will here point-by-point, but I will excerpt the devastating response to the ombudsman's lazy defense of Will penned by Hilzoy of the Washington Monthly. After you read it, I'm sure you will want to give Andy Alexander (ombudsman@washpost.com) -- "the reader's advocate" -- a piece of your mind (and please do repost it in the comments).

Alexander's original email ends:

Me, in the L.A. Times on Los Angeles' Measure B

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power works hard to exempt itself from renewable energy legislation from Sacramento, and, not coincidentally, it's also the dirtiest utility in the state. About 50 percent of the electricity they sell their customers comes from coal.

So when the utility announced a huge new solar plan, that's all good news, right? The Los Angeles Times asked me for a review of Measure B, a ballot initiative that would enable the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to install 400 MW of solar on land and rooftops within the city. I'm no Hamlet, so I dived into the messy politics, and you can find the piece here.

If you don't hear from me in the next few days, watch this for clues. Been nice knowing you.

Eric Pooley offers nine questions on climate legislation that the press ought to ask Obama

Eric Pooley continues his quest to single-handedly raise the intelligence of mainstream media climate coverage by a factor of ten: Thursday on the Nieman Watchdog site, he lays out "nine climate questions for President Obama" on the upcoming climate bill. I won't attempt to summarize them here. Suffice to say, a) he hits the most important issues, and b) the chances of anyone in the U.S. political press corps asking Obama questions this informed and nuanced are somewhere between slim and nil.

I was going to conclude this post by cleverly pointing out an important question Pooley missed, but I can't think of one. Go read.

Washington's cap-and-trade legislation passes out of committee

Dear pollutey companies of Washington state, your days are numbered. House Bill 1819, backed by Gov. Chris Gregoire (D), has whizzed through committee and is on its way to a full vote.

The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system that would limit greenhouse-gas emissions and require companies to purchase the right to pollute further, while greener biz folk would profit by auctioning off their unused allowances. Hooray for rewarding the good guys!

The carbon trading market would extend to six other states and four Canadian provinces -- all part of the Western Climate Initiative -- once the bill is passed here and in the other jurisdictions.

Bush's former ag deputy slinks back from whence he came: a cush agribiz post

A few years back, I thought I was on to a Really Big Story: President Bush had plucked a man named Chuck Conner from his perch as president of the Corn Refiners Association -- a front group for Archer Daniels Midland, and the force behind those putrid high-fructose corn syrup ads -- and made him his "special assistant to the president for agriculture, trade and food assistance." Eventually, Conner became the USDA's deputy secretary -- widely seen as the agency's fixer, the guy who got things done.

In the corn bubble in which I then existed -- some say I'm still there -- this seemed like a really big deal. A man who had essentially worked as a lobbyist for Archer Daniels Midland -- the company that singlehandely rigged up both the corn ethanol program and the high-fructose corn syrup market, two massive travesties -- was now advising the president on ag policy.

And people ... yawned. Thinking back on it, of course they did. This was the Bush administration -- crony capitalism had been raised to the level of statecraft. These guys were handing billion-dollar no-bid contracts to the vice president's old company, to perform outsourcing functions in a war he himself had engineered. What was a bit of Oval Office bump-and-tickle with an industrial corn man?

Well, for those of you who care, here's a newsflash: Conner waltzed out of Bush's USDA and into another top job at a big agribiz trade group: the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. Now, the group's name makes it sound a bit down-home, like a bunch of guys in overalls banding together to run a grain elevator.

Don't be fooled. The NCFC is made up mainly of "cooperatives" that have scaled up to corporate size; many of them work in concert with agribiz giants like ADM to squeeze small farmers and workers. One glaring example is the giant entity Dairy Farmers of America, an NCFC member that controls a third of the milk produced in the U.S. DFA has been accused of colluding with milk-processing giant Dean Foods to squeeze farmers on price.

The game plan: partnership with China

Conventional wisdom seems to be that Obama needs to secure a domestic climate bill and then take that bill to international climate talks in Copenhagen this December as a demonstration of good faith. I very, very much doubt there will be a climate bill signed into law by Dec. But there’s something else that the […]

Anti-coal activists get a boost from Tennessee ash spill and other mishaps

Anti-coal activists are inspired to hit the streets. Sarah McCoin watched for years as coal fly ash piled up at the coal-fired power plant just a mile down the road from her house in Harriman, Tenn. “We’d question, ‘I wonder how high they’re going to build that thing? I wonder what they’re going to do […]