Climate Politics

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

Washington state Senate aims to boost green jobs, construction

As Microsoft, Starbucks, and other Seattle-area giants announce layoffs, Democrats in the Washington state Senate have revealed a package of proposed laws aimed at boosting the number of green jobs in the state -- by speeding up construction projects. (Sound familiar?)

The "Clean Energy, Green Jobs" legislation will funnel money from the anticipated federal stimulus package and the state's construction budget into green building efforts. By 2030, older buildings would have to decrease their greenhouse-gas emissions and new buildings would be required to be emissions-free.

Aimed at "encouraging businesses to become more environmentally friendly," the legislation would also require state vehicles to meet 36 mpg standards, provide provisions for weatherizing low-income homes, and incorporate sales tax breaks for hybrid and electric vehicles.

Oregon rep pens befuddling op-ed on climate legislation

Today's WTF moment sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who writes in the Oregonian that lawmakers should abandon cap-and-trade. He says:

Despite these obvious problems, federal and state lawmakers are poised to move forward with a cap-and-trade system. I'm working in Washington to oppose this proposal and to find an alternative. One option that needs further exploration is to establish a emissions cap and to direct polluters to either reduce emissions or to purchase certified offsets (reductions from other entities) to meet emission targets.

But given the devastating impact of past deregulation on U.S. energy and financial markets, I have serious concerns about using a "market-based approach" to solve serious problems. My colleagues in Congress, and Oregon legislators, would be wise to do their homework on a cap-and-trade system before moving forward with more deregulation.

So, instead of a cap-and-trade system he wants ... a cap, and emissions credits, that can be traded. Huh.

Even more confusing? DeFazio co-sponsored the Safe Climate Act last Congress, a cap-and-trade proposal from Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Sen. Bob Corker wants a carbon tax

"I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there's no net dollars that would come out of the American people's pockets."

-- Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), addressing Al Gore during a Jan. 28 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Colorado official with green chops is tapped for White House post

The Obama team circulated another list of hires at the White House on Wednesday. Apparently, the new president has scooped up Shaun McGrath, the green mayor of Boulder, Colo., as a deputy director of intergovernmental affairs.

McGrath began serving on the Boulder city council in November 2003 and was elected mayor in 2007. He has worked for the Western Governors' Association since 1995, where he is the program director for water and drought policy, climate change adaptation, and the Wildlife Corridors Initiative. He was previously a legislative assistant to Rep. Jim Slattery (D-Kansas), working on environmental issues, and the executive director of the Kansas Natural Resource Council.

Here's his official bio:

Prior to joining the White House, McGrath was Program Director for the Western Governors Association, an independent, non-profit organization representing the governors of the 19 western states and three U.S. flag islands in the Pacific, where he managed programs on wildlife corridors, sustainable water, renewable energy, and climate adaptation. McGrath is also the Mayor of Boulder, Colorado, a progressive city of 100,000, named the "smartest city in America" by Forbes magazine in 2006 and 2008. As Mayor, he led efforts to establish Boulder as the first smart-grid city in the country, pass a climate action plan for which voters approved country's first carbon tax, and become only the third city in the country to receive the platinum level "bicycle friendly community" award from the League of American Bicyclists.

As meaningful as his presidency is, Obama will not act fast enough on the climate crisis

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered about our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

-- William Shakespeare, King Richard the Third

To complain that President Barack Obama is not serious enough about climate strikes most U.S. environmentalists as strange, almost incomprehensible behavior. This is a time for celebration and new beginnings and any small doubts we harbor are easily assuaged by our confidence in the man who is president. Those who are not swept up in the new optimism seem small -- either nit-pickers of detail who miss the big picture (what did he mean by "harness the sun and the winds and the soil"?) or the Gloster's of our victory -- cramped and parsimonious in spirit, prone to petty grievance.

Our feelings now are in accord with our conduct over the last decade and more. We are always optimistic, it is our nature. When politicians send mixed signals we embrace the positive and accept the troubling as pragmatic, necessary concessions. When offered half a loaf we take it and proclaim ourselves full.

But this is no compromise to be swallowed, is it? After eight years in the wilderness, we look out onto a playing field dominated by President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, and Congressman Markey, and we see immense promise. In Obama's majestic inaugural address we heard climate mentioned, then mentioned again, and again, and, "he gets it!" we thought. This is what we endured for, this is what we campaigned hard for, and the sweetness in the D.C. air is more glorious than we had imagined.

Except for three things:

1. The time-line for climate action has been cut to four years.
2. The Democratic plan of action is utterly inadequate.
3. Climate is a second-tier problem for President Obama.

Creating transit-oriented communities addresses many different issues

Last November, Seattle-area voters gave a resounding shout-out to mass transit. Building on that support, a new bill in Washington state focuses on sustainable development near transit stations. This "Creating Transit Communities" legislation calls for dense, walkable communities in transit hot-spots.

It would provide local jurisdictions with resources and incentives for sustainable growth and strengthen existing provisions about making low-income housing available near transit centers.

Think those are unrelated issues? No way, say bill supporters from Futurewise, Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, and Transportation Choices Coalition. "Our state may face no challenge greater than the threat of global warming and the lack of sufficient affordable housing," they argue in a recent Seattle P-I editorial, "and we can't solve either unless we solve both."

They go on to illuminate the connections: