Climate Politics

What does the stimulus fight portend for the climate/energy fight?

The battle over the stimulus bill was the first big challenge of the Obama presidency, and the way it played out is instructive. What will it mean for the coming climate/energy fights?

First, let's get clear on the basic shape of what happened. Obama went into this thinking that an enormous financial crisis and a wide consensus among economists that large federal stimulus is required would be an opportunity to establish an early spirit of pragmatic "post-partisanship." If not in the face of a huge crisis, if not around an indisputably necessary bill, then when?

This is what Obama campaigned on and what he led with in office. He had dinner with conservative pundits. He had extended policy discussions with Congressional Republicans at the White House. He included a far greater percentage of tax cuts in his initial proposal than anyone expected (or most economists recommended). He worked with Congressional Dems to remove some of the small programs Republicans complained about (like re-sodding the National Mall). He did more reaching out, listening, and conceding to the opposing party than Republicans have, cumulatively, in the last 15 years, despite entering office fresh off of huge victories and sky-high public approval.

What did it get him? In terms of Republican support: zilch. Nothing. In the end he got zero votes in the House and all of three in the Senate, after several hundred thousands jobs had been stripped from the package. Republicans carpeted the media demagoguing individual spending programs from the bill and claiming Obama's bipartisanship had "failed" because, well, because they refused to participate. Karl Rove has announced, basically, that Republicans triumphed by giving Obama nothing and that they would not offer him a shred of credit no matter what happens to the economy. The GOP House minority whip says explicitly that he's modeling his leadership on Newt Gingrich. Seriously.

MoveOn preps for gigantic green economy campaign

This hit my inbox yesterday:

When FDR became president, a group of progressive activists asked him to push for some really big changes. His response? "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

President Obama gets that we need to transform our economy. He's passionate about creating millions of green jobs and investing billions in renewable energy. And he's appointed great leaders like Energy Secretary Chu to help him.

But unless we create a massive green-economy movement across America, Obama won't have the mandate he needs to overcome the oil companies and make fundamental change. As president, Obama's extraordinary power comes from the people outside Washington. And that's us.

So we've worked up a big plan to build a green-economy groundswell. It'll mean tripling our field organizing team, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members to take local action, and running ads targeting powerful interests that stand in the way. It'll be MoveOn's biggest long-term campaign ever.

If President Obama is going to transform our economy, he needs all of us standing behind him giving him strength. Are you in?

I'm in!

(But, just to be picky, it's overcoming coal companies that will be the biggest challenge ...)

Green groups outline ideal environmental budget for FY ’10

With President Obama expected to release his first federal budget plan on Feb. 26, environmental groups today pitched their ideas about what should be included. The proposed “green” budget, which comes from a coalition of 27 environmental groups, includes more than $72 billion for green projects. The Green Budget 2010 [PDF] proposal seeks multi-billion-dollar investments […]

Will coal fight continue if governor is tapped for Obama Cabinet?

Coal-battling Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) is reportedly the top choice to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. So if Obama taps her for the Cabinet post, what exactly does this means for the coal fight in her home state, since as a few weeks ago we mentioned that Kansas’ coal lovers […]

Politicos, Pickens hype summit in D.C. next week

Three of the political leaders who will help determine the future of U.S. energy policy — and two guys who clearly want to influence it — spoke to reporters Wednesday in advance of a major energy summit in Washington, D.C., next week where each will speak. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Secretary of Energy […]

James Hansen wants you to join in civil disobedience at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant

Some 10,000 young people will be descending on Washington, D.C., from Feb. 27 to March 2 for the Power Shift 2009 conference, where they’ll be organizing to put pressure on political leaders to take action on climate change. On the last day of the event, they’re the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Rainforest Action Network […]

What's up with the Department of Treasury's Office of Environment and Energy?

Am I the only one who had no idea the Treasury Department started an Office of Environment and Energy? Apparently it happened late summer of last year. The office was created by Hank Paulson to ...

... develop, coordinate, and execute the Treasury Department's role in the domestic and international environment and energy agenda of the United States. Among other things, the office will oversee international financial mechanisms to support U.S. and global environmental goals, such as the multi-billion dollar Clean Technology Fund established in July, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, and the Global Environmental Facility, as well as contribute to the development of domestic and international policy options to address climate change.

There's weirdly little info out there about what exactly the office is and what it will do under Geithner's leadership. The Treasury website says nothing about it.

What does economic 'recovery' mean on an extreme weather planet?

This is a guest essay by Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and an editor of the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. Englehardt is also the author of The End of Victory Culture and the editor of The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire. This post was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom's kind permission.

-----

It turns out that you don't want to be a former city dweller in rural parts of southernmost Australia, a stalk of wheat in China or Iraq, a soybean in Argentina, an almond or grape in northern California, a cow in Texas, or almost anything in parts of east Africa right now. Let me explain.

As anyone who has turned on the prime-time TV news these last weeks knows, southeastern Australia has been burning up. It's already dry climate has been growing ever hotter. "The great drying," Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery calls it. At its epicenter, Melbourne recorded its hottest day ever this month at a sweltering 115.5 degrees, while temperatures soared even higher in the surrounding countryside. After more than a decade of drought, followed by the lowest rainfall on record, the eucalyptus forests are now burning. To be exact, they are now pouring vast quantities of stored carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas considered largely responsible for global warming, into the atmosphere.

In fact, everything's been burning there. Huge sheets of flame, possibly aided and abetted by arsonists, tore through whole towns. More than 180 people are dead and thousands homeless. Flannery, who has written eloquently about global warming, drove through the fire belt, and reported:

Obama says tar-sands oil has ‘big carbon footprint,’ but doesn’t rule out its use

President Barack Obama is heading up to Canada on Wednesday Thursday to chat with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as David mentioned earlier. The two are slated to discuss, among other things, trade, climate change, and tar sands. Harper is expected to encourage Obama to support a partnership between the neighboring nations that protects Alberta’s tar […]

Canadian PM and business groups use Obama's visit to shill for dirty tar sands oil

On Wednesday Thursday, Barack Obama is heading up to Canada, where they're getting nervous about growing protectionist and environmentalist sentiment in the U.S. Canadian PM Stephen Harper is widely expected to hype the special trade relationship between the two countries and push Obama for a climate partnership that spares tar sands oil -- one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in North America -- from any carbon restrictions. (Hey, if the U.S. is going easy on coal, why shouldn't Canada go easy on tar sands?)

To that end, during Obama's visit, a group called the Canadian American Business Council (boasting such luminaries as Exxon Mobil and Shell Oil) will be running full-page ads in major U.S. publications, which say:

The countries share the largest energy trade relationship in the world, with Canada supplying more oil and natural gas to the U.S. than any other foreign supplier. Second only to Saudi Arabia in proven petroleum reserves, Canada is poised to securely supply even more oil and natural gas to the U.S., while industries on both sides of the border innovate and invest in technologies to enhance environmental responsibility.

"Enhance environmental responsibility," you say? Let's take a look at a recent dispatch from Canada's Pembina Institute:

Today the Pembina Institute submitted comments on a draft Alberta Government policy that would allow in situ oil sands operations to burn dirtier fuels, which would significantly increase the intensity and total amount of greenhouse gas pollution and air emissions from the sector. ...

The policy would allow oil sands companies operating in situ projects to switch from burning natural gas to much dirtier, more carbon intensive fossil fuels such as raw bitumen or the waste from oil sands upgrading (petroleum coke and asphaltenes). Compared to conventional oil production, in situ oil sands production produces four times the greenhouse gas pollution per barrel when burning relatively cleaner natural gas. According to the Pembina Institute's analysis, in situ oil sands operations burning petroleum coke without any mitigation would produce 66 per cent more greenhouse gas pollution than if the same operation were to burn natural gas. The Alberta Government document states that the policy may be expanded to include other industrial activities in the future.

Depends on what the meaning of "enhance" is, I guess.

U.S. group Forest Ethics is running the following full-page ad in response: