Climate Politics

Skeptics hope D.C. snow will put the freeze on Gore's testimony

The nation's capital is currently in the grips of Snowpacalypse '09 (meaning, in D.C. parlance, we have about 2 inches of snow on the ground).

Climate skeptics are already giddy about the fact that a) clearly this demonstrates that global warming is a ginourmous lie; and b) it may mean Al Gore's scheduled testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow gets put on hold.

There's a reason Republicans stump for a carbon tax, and it ain't to reduce emissions

This may piss off some people I respect a great deal. Nonetheless, after hearing it in several off-the-record conversations in D.C. last week, I believe it's something that needs to be said publicly:

The 111th U.S. Congress is not going to pass a carbon tax. Calls for a carbon tax, to the extent they have any effect, will complicate and possibly derail passage of carbon legislation.

It's possible that a carbon tax (and/or cap-and-dividend) bill will be introduced. One or both might even make it to a full vote, though I doubt it. But they won't pass. If you want carbon pricing out of this Congress, cap-and-trade is what you're getting. It follows that your energies are best spent ensuring that cap-and-trade legislation is as strong as possible.

Them's the facts.

Through some process I find truly mysterious, the carbon tax has become a kind of totem of authenticity among progressives, while cap-and-trade now symbolizes corporate sellouthood. Across the interwebs, lefties now proclaim with absolute confidence and no small sanctimony that we should entrust our children's future to economists (whose historical contribution to environmental policy has been hostility, doomsaying, and an unbroken record of error) and the Congressional committees that control tax policy (climate champions all). "Pay to pollute," once the scourge of the green movement, is now the sine qua non of keepin' it real. It is baffling.

It doesn't seem to daunt these folks that their hostility toward cap-and-trade and support for carbon taxes has been taken up by a growing cadre on the far right, including Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, economist Arthur Laffer, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and yes, even climate wingnut Sen. James Inhofe (R-Gamma Quadrant). Hell, throw in a refunded gas tax and you get America's Worst Columnist© Charles Krauthammer too. Are we to believe that these folks understand the threat of climate chaos, want to reduce climate emissions the amount science indicates is prudent, and sincerely believe that a carbon tax is the best way to accomplish that goal?

Jamming coal subsidies into every conceivable spending vehicle

"He wants it as big as possible. He's going to just keep working for more and more and more money for this."

-- Jamie Smith, communications director for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who's busy trying to get even more "clean coal" subsidies into the stimulus bill

What gas taxes don't do

Surprising: state gas taxes appear to have very little effect on either driving habits or fuel consumption. More precisely, there's no correlation between a state's gasoline tax and the amount of fuel its residents use or the amount of driving they do.

Don't believe me? Feast your eyes on these babies:

And:

Those are big, fat, completely uncorrelated blobs. What you're seeing is all 50 states plus D.C. plotted to show a relationship between state gas tax rates and per capita fuel consumption (in the first chart) and per capita miles driven (in the second chart). There is essentially no relationship whatsoever.

When to change that light bulb

"Often when I'm on TV, they'll ask what are the three most important things for people to do [to stop global warming]. I know they want me to say that people should change their light bulbs. I say the number one thing is to organize politically; number two, do some political organizing; number three, get together with your neighbors and organize; and then if you have energy left over from all of that, change the light bulb."

-- writer and activist Bill McKibben

Obama administration on green investment

From the energy & environment agenda on the spiffy new White House website:

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Not create but help create jobs -- government as partner, not mommy or daddy.

Not just spending but strategic investment -- emphasizing positive rate of return rather than cost.

Not replace but catalyze private efforts -- use government to nudge markets in the right direction.

Not return to pre-industrial Nature but build a clean energy future -- active not passive, ahead not backward, implying work (build) and thus jobs.

They're just good at this stuff.

LaHood on the auto industry and Obama's clean-car moves

"The car manufacturers knew this was coming. I don't think you're going to see them get a lot of heartburn over this."

-- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on President Obama's announcement that his administration is moving toward stricter regulation of auto fuel economy

How will EPA move forward on revisiting Calif. waiver?

Now that President Obama has directed regulators to revisit California's request for a waiver to set higher tailpipe emissions standards, what's next?

A statement from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson wasn't too revealing on the process for revisiting and approving the waiver: "Knowing EPA has the full support of the President as we proceed to revisit the Bush era denial of the California waiver is very encouraging. The President's actions today herald a sea change in America's commitment to addressing climate change."

Jackson had already promised as much in her confirmation hearing, so this isn't terribly enlightening. Attempts to get more, er, details out of an EPA spokesperson were unsuccessful. Luckily, the agency has put together this handy guide to waivers. One tidbit:

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air-pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government's. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California's rules may go into effect. Once California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a notice for public hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written comment period typically remains open for a period of time after the public hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and the administrator determines whether California has satisfied the law's requirements for obtaining a waiver.

Under the Clean Air Act's Section 209, the EPA is supposed to grant a waiver unless it finds that California "was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards." Other reasons for rejecting a waiver are if the state "does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," or if the state's policy conflicts with other sections of the act.

Because the Bush administration's EPA already went through the entire process of reviewing the information on this waiver, it's unlikely that Obama's team will have to go through that again; the science and the law haven't changed (despite the Bush administration's best efforts). According to David Doniger, the policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, the most likely scenario is that Jackson and her staff review the previous records and come to their own determination about whether to grant the waiver.

NYT's Revkin seems shocked by media's own failure to explain climate threat

Who determines the set of ideas the public is exposed to -- and how they are framed? The national media.

The media's choices are especially important in a decade when the Executive Branch -- the principal force for setting the national agenda -- was run by two oil men who actively devoted major resources to denying the reality of climate science, ignoring the impacts, and muzzling U.S. climate scientists.

Yet the national media remains exceedingly lame on the climate issue, as a searing critique by a leading U.S. journalist details (see "How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics"). The media downplay the threat of global warming (and hence the cost of inaction). And they still hedge on attributing climate impacts to human action.

This criticism extends to our premier reporters, such as the New York Times' Andy Revkin. Indeed, I (and dozens of other people) have an email from last week that Andy sent to Mark Morano (denier extraordinaire staffer for Senate denier extraordinaire James Inhofe). Andy asserts:

I've been the most prominent communicator out there saying the most established aspects of the issue of human-driven climate change lie between the poles of catastrophe and hoax.

Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, "A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate," that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The "middle stance" is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax -- which is why I call them denier-eq's.

Now if the top NYT reporter is pushing the mushy middle -- if he writes things like "Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans, if his stories have online headlines like Arctic Ice Hints at Warming, Specialists Say -- why on Earth would it be news that the public is itself stuck in the mushy middle?

And yet in both the NYT article and his blog, Revkin makes a huge deal of a poll that, if anything, merely reveals how bad the media's coverage of the issue is. His blog post, "Obama Urgent on Warming, Public Cool" and his article, "Environmental Issues Slide in Poll of Public's Concerns," completely misframe the issue. Let's start with the blog:

Report says Lisa Heinzerling to join EPA as climate adviser

More big news out of EPA today: The legal mind behind one of the most important environmental cases of the past decade appears to be headed to the EPA to advise Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate change issues, according to a published report.

Joining Jackson's team will be Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the lead author of the plaintiffs' briefs in Massachusetts v. EPA, the court case settled by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Via TPMDC, here's the Carbon Control News ($ub req'd) report on the news:

In the Supreme Court case, Heinzerling was the lead author of arguments from a coalition of environmentalists and states claiming EPA had a legal obligation to address greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The court agreed, and EPA has been struggling for the past several years on how to fulfill that obligation. Heinzerling's presence at EPA could help the agency craft climate change policies and potential regulations that conform with the high court ruling and can withstand future legal challenges.

The EPA press office would not confirm the Heinzerling news, saying only that Jackson "is building a team to help implement the President's environmental agenda and it will be announced shortly." Heinzerling's voicemail recording at Georgetown says she is on a two-year leave from the school because she has "taken a position in the new administration." Georgetown Law officials declined to comment.

If the news is confirmed, it will be a significant development, considering that the EPA is going to have to follow through with the endangerment finding mandated by the Supreme Court in that case. The Bush administration refused to make a finding, but Jackson has pledged to complete the work. At her confirmation hearing earlier this month, Jackson said that the endangerment finding "will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country."