Climate Politics

Why the rush to defend this not-so-embattled style of legislation?

Recently the green blogosphere has been engaged in an oddly vigorous defense of command and control style legislation. I'm not sure whether this trendlet grows out of environmentalists' unfortunate habit of ranking and re-ranking and arguing over the ranking of various solutions to climate change; or out of pique that odious people like Charles Krauthammer are pretending to be proponents of carbon pricing; or, as I suspect, out of something else entirely, but I have some good news for supporters of mandates: Both the public and public officials love command and control style legislation.

To be sure, the term "command and control" is pejorative, but no congressperson ever introduced the 2008 Command and Control Environmental Protection Act. Nevertheless, virtually every single piece of environmental legislation ever enacted takes the form of a mandate. From renewable portfolio standards to CAFE to wilderness protection to the quality of our air and water to species protection to waste management to an endless stream of subsidies and tax credits (good, bad, and ugly) -- they don't call it environmental regulation for nothing.

The new administration holds the incentives for a strong federal climate bill

The following is the first in a series of guest posts from the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal think tank that works on constitutional and environmental issues. It is written by online communications director Hannah McCrea and president Doug Kendall, who also help maintain CAC's blog, Warming Law.

-----

There can be little doubt that the U.S. needs a strong carbon-pricing system, such as a cap-and-trade program, to help combat global warming. Politicians have proposed a range of alternative policy measures that avoid carbon-pricing (e.g. traditional "command-and-control" regulations on emissions, renewable portfolio standards, massive investments in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies, etc.), but economists widely agree [PDF] that none of these approaches will, on their own, be swift or strong enough to reduce the risk of irreversible climate change. The better approach to mitigating this risk is to attach a price to carbon emissions -- one high enough to ensure that greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels are more expensive to consume, per unit, than are clean and renewable alternatives.

To this end, members of the 110th Congress, including then-Senator Barack Obama, focused on trying to pass a cap-and-trade bill. Last June, they pushed the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, an ultimately doomed effort that attracted harsh criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. As Grist readers will surely recall, progressives condemned the bill for being dangerously weak because it failed to meet the IPCC-established target of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while conservatives claimed the bill would ensure the U.S.'s economic ruin.

After the bill's death, leaders in Congress -- indeed Barack Obama himself -- promised a stronger follow-up to Lieberman-Warner. However, with the economic climate dramatically altered in the last six months, political support for such an ambitious program may be in doubt. As the severity of the recession came into greater focus in the weeks leading up to the November elections, candidates made a notable shift in their rhetoric on climate policy, subtly replacing the focus on cap-and-trade with one on clean energy investments and "green" recovery measures. Outside of Washington, state and local governments continued to demonstrate their lack of faith that federal climate action will be forthcoming, as evidenced by further development of regional cap-and-trade schemes, namely New England's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Western Climate Initiative, and the Midwestern Governors Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. These initiatives are motivated by the widely-shared sentiment that even with hope of meaningful federal action on climate change in 2009, dramatic reductions in carbon emissions simply cannot wait a moment longer.

Obama's new middle class task force to focus first on green jobs

The Obama administration today announced the creation of a Middle Class Task Force that will work on "raising the living standards of middle-class, working families in America."

Notably, the group's first meeting, slated for Feb. 27 in Philadelphia, will be on the subject of "Green Jobs: A Pathway to a Strong Middle Class."

The task force will be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden. Other members include the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Commerce, and the directors of the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Domestic Policy Council, and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

"Quite simply, a strong middle class equals a strong America. We can't have one without the other," said Biden in a statement today. "This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class. It is our charge to get the middle class - the backbone of this country - up and running again."

Kingston, coal ash, and the coal lobby’s grip on the EPA

The American News Project files a report on "The EPA and the Curse of Coal Ash." Fantastic, affecting stuff, as always from ANP. Watch:

Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages

Standards-based regulations and public investment are superior to either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. But we need some form of carbon pricing to reinforce public action, and a carbon tax is superior to carbon trading.

The main policy advantage cap-and-traders offer over a carbon tax is certainty. They claim that it is better to fix the ceiling on emissions and let the price vary than to fix the price and hope it produces the reduction you want. However, most cap-and-trade advocates favor an escape clause, a price ceiling which would trigger the issue of more permits, either because they see it as the price you have to pay to get a bill through, or because they honestly favor the policy. In either case, once you have an escape clause, you no longer have the certainty advocates tout so highly.

The prospects for ocean protection under a new president and Congress

This is a guest post by David Helvarg, an author and a coordinator of the upcoming Blue Vision Summit in Washington, D.C. His next book is Rescue Warriors: The U.S. Coast Guard, America's Forgotten Heroes (May 2009).

-----

America now has, among other historic precedents, its first bodysurfing president. Of course, protecting the ocean (71 percent of the planet's surface and 97 percent of its livable habitat) is still not likely to be the top priority of Hawaii-raised Barack Obama. He's got more than enough policy challenges for his first weeks in office, with the collapse of a world economy based on American consumers buying stuff, two ongoing and intractable wars, and the civilization-ending threat from fossil fuel-fired climate change.

Still, healthy oceans and coasts are essential to the nation's economy, security, and stability. About half of America's GDP is generated in its 600 coastal counties (which are home to $4 trillion of insured property). And to some degree, everyone is at risk from the cascading marine ecological disasters of overfishing (loss of food security), nutrient and plastic pollution (public health threats), coastal sprawl (increased risk of disaster), and climate change (big increased risk of disaster).

The first sign of hope is the new president's insistence that change has to come from bottom-up engagement of our citizenry. On Martin Luther King's birthday, the night before the inauguration, some 300 people participated in a seaweed shoreline restoration in my Bay Area neighborhood of Richmond, Calif., and about half of the participants had heard about it on an Obama-linked volunteer website.

More on conservatives and carbon taxes

Bill Chameides, all around smart guy and dean of Duke's Nicholas School, takes a look at the rash of conservatives supporting carbon taxes (which I addressed the other day in more, um, colorful terms):

Some of my colleagues believe it's the poisoned pawn ploy -- since taxes are not viable politically, kill climate legislation by favoring a carbon tax.

I have a different hunch.

His hunch is that conservatives want to raise a carbon tax (which is regressive) in order to lower income taxes (which are progressive) -- in other words, they want a regressive tax shift. These newly minted carbon tax fans are longtime champions of that agenda:

Coincidentally, Inglis and Laffer just happen to favor replacing our progressive tax system with a more regressive one (see here and here). Inglis has earned the Citizens for Tax Justice's highest rating for his opposition "to progressive taxes," and Laffer is a highly vocal proponent of the flat tax that would replace our progressive tax system with a single tax rate for all Americans.

Many things about the tax vs. C&T debate are uncertain, but one thing I have no doubt about is that James Inhofe and Rex Tillerson are not participating in good faith. If those two guys told me the earth was round I'd be rechecking satellite photos.

Senate stimulus plan looking even better for clean energy investments

Dan Weiss and Alexandra Kougentakis at the Center for American Progress take a look at the Senate's version of the stimulus plan and conclude that, on the whole, it's better in terms of clean energy investments and incentives than the House version.

While several not-so-green programs would get funding in the Senate plan -- including $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and $4.6 billion for the coal industry -- green projects overall would get approximately $7 billion more in spending.

The Senate's American Investment and Recovery Plan (not to be confused with the House's "American Reinvestment and Recover Act") includes $78 billion in clean energy spending as part of their $365 billion recovery package. The tax package also has $31 billion in tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, compared to $20 billion in the House plan.

Grid improvement funds are higher in the Senate version -- $21 billion compared with the House's $19 billion. Same with funds for renewables -- $7.6 billion, to the House's $5.1 billion.

We mistakenly wrote yesterday that mass transit fares worse in the Senate version of the bill when compared with the House's $14.6 billion. But transit gets a better deal in the Senate overall, at $17 billion. Amtrak especially fares better -- $3.1 billion to the House's $1.1 billion.

Investments in building and appliance efficiency, meanwhile, did better in the House version -- $5 billion more than the Senate plan.

Of course, the Senate's version could still change when it moves to floor for debate next week, and any differences between the bills the two chambers pass would have to be worked out in a conference committee.

Denier duo tried to tarnish Hansen and utterly misquoted Revkin

Once again, the office of Sen. James Inhofe (Denier-Okla.) has put out a press release riddled with misstatements, this one attacking the nation's top climate scientist James Hansen.

Their last release was notable for the outright lies and distortions by Inhofe and his top staffer, Marc Morano.

Now they are making stuff up about Hansen, claiming the Bush Administration did not try to muzzle him, when they clearly did, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee documented in a December 2007 report. Somehow I think that report -- which is based on "over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department," two investigative hearings, and the depositions and interviews of key officials -- is a tad more credible than the words of some former NASA engineer.

It is absurd for Inhofe to have a blaring headline that "Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor" says Hansen "was never muzzled," when this guy does not appear to have been Hansen's supervisor (he "did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation," an authority possessed by every supervisor I ever had in government -- see also NASA's Gavin Schmidt here) -- and in any case, had a position above Hansen only from 1982-1994, a full decade before the muzzling occurred!

I don't want to waste a lot of time debunking pathological make-stuff-uppers like Inhofe and Morano, but let me point out one representative lie. The Morano post blares:

NYT's Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are not 'even physically possible'

But let's go the link and see what Revkin actually wrote.

This is a post by David Lewis of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network on an interview Mike Tidwell did with me and Revkin that turned into a little debate. I meant to blog on this earlier but I didn't have a transcript. It gets further in to some of the disagreements I have with Revkin. But let's cut to the chase.

Revkin replied to the post as follows:

Rep. Mike Pence protests climate research funding in stimulus bill

"What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to put people back to work in Indiana?"

-- Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), speaking on the floor of the House against the stimulus package that he and every other Republican voted against