Climate Politics

Gore urges Congress to quickly pass stimulus package and climate bill

 

Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, VP-turned-climate-guru Al Gore urged lawmakers to move quickly on both the economic-stimulus package and a cap-and-trade climate bill. His testimony -- which included an updated version of his Inconvenient Truth slide show, now with even scarier data -- was warmly received by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's recovery package," Gore said. "The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas -- energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid, and the move to clean cars -- represent an important down payment and are long overdue." He said he favors the House version of the bill (passed Wednesday afternoon), which includes more funding for efficiency, renewable energy, and mass transit.

This was the first major hearing of the 111th Congress for the Foreign Relations Committee, whose new chair is Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). By shining a spotlight on Gore and climate change at the hearing, Kerry sent a clear message about his priorities.

"Frankly, the science is screaming at us," Kerry said. He cited a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania, MIT, and the Heinz Center that found that even if the world aims for the highest goals currently on the table -- including Obama's call for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 -- carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would still far exceed safe levels. "If every nation were to make good on its existing promises, we would still see atmospheric carbon dioxide levels well above 600 parts per million -- 50 percent above where we are now. ... And no one in the scientific community disputes that this would be catastrophic."

"Some may argue that we cannot afford to address this issue in the midst of an economic crisis," Kerry continued. "Those who pose that question have it fundamentally wrong. This is a moment of enormous opportunity for new technology, new jobs, and the greening and transformation of our economy."

Gore echoed that point, emphasizing that we can't wait to act on climate change, which is intertwined with other key national challenges. "We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan," said Gore. "As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread -- our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels."

House passes stimulus package with more than $100 billion in green spending

Without the support of a single Republican lawmaker, the House today approved the $819 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by a vote of 244-188.

The package would allocate more than $100 billion in direct spending for various green projects, including money for clean energy and efficiency programs, a smart grid, weatherization of low- and moderate-income homes, retrofits on public buildings and public housing, clean water infrastructure, and environmental restoration.

The measure contains $14.6 billion for public transportation, $3 billion more than originally planned thanks to an amendment that mass transit supporters were able to add during debate. There's also $37.9 billion for energy efficiency and $27.8 billion for renewable energy. On top of those amounts, the Ways and Means Committee added $20 billion in renewable-energy and energy-efficiency tax credits and related financial incentives, and inserted language to make the investment tax credit passed last year refundable.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which probably won't vote on a package until next week. Appropriators have been hashing out how they'll distribute funds, and it's looking like green projects won't fare as well in the Senate version even though senators' package is $68 billion larger. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $365.6 billion in spending, and the Senate Finance Committee passed $522 billion in tax measures, which include incentives for renewables. There's only $8.4 billion for mass transit in the Senate package, which is even less than a previous draft of the bill called for.

Salazar sends mixed signals on offshore drilling

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated on Tuesday that he intends to scrap the Bush administration's leasing plan that would have opened the coasts to drilling, even as he said the Obama administration is open to some expanded development of offshore oil and gas fields.

The Bush administration's DOI issued a draft of a five-year leasing plan several days before leaving office, following on the expiration of the outer continental shelf moratorium last fall. But Salazar told the Associated Press that his department plans to work with Congress to craft "a plan that makes sense" for offshore oil and gas development in the context of a broader energy policy.

Though he didn't elaborate on areas that might be off-limits, Salazar advocated for some level of protection, which is an improvement, since currently there is nothing protecting the coasts. "There are places that are appropriate for exploration and development and there are places that are not," he said.

Today's Wall Street Journal chose to focus on Salazar's refusal to rule out trying to reinstitute the offshore drilling ban. Under the headline "Offshore Drilling on the Table" (sub. req'd.), the newspaper reported:

"Asked about the Bush administration's proposal to open certain areas of the East and West coasts to drilling and whether he saw any opportunities for expanded development of the nation's offshore areas, Mr. Salazar said: "When you look at the whole [outer continental shelf], it's a huge potential. And it has to be done carefully. We don't want to ruin the beaches of Florida and the coastlines of other places that are sensitive. On the other hand, there are places where it may be appropriate for us to have reconnaissance and exploration and even development. Those are questions that we are exploring and hopefully over the months ahead we'll have answers to these questions."

House debates adjustments to the stimulus package

The House is expected to pass the stimulus bill this evening, and they're currently debating amendments. There's already some good news for greens: They just approved a $3 billion increase in funding for mass transit.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), brings the total for public transit to $14.6 billion. It was cosponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), Rep. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D, Minn.). Greater Greater Washington reports that Nadler said in his floor speech today that $1.5 billion of the funds will go to the transit capital formula program and $1.5 billion to the new starts program.

An amendment [PDF] from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to remove all funding for Amtrak from the bill failed.

In addition to the transit funding, the package has $37.9 billion for energy efficiency and $27.8 billion for renewable energy.

Rep. James Oberstar, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Comittee, is also pushing for an amendment that would mandate that funds for aviation, highway, rail, and transit come with a "use-it-or-lose-it" provisions, requiring that 50 percent of the funds be obligated within 90 days.

OpenCongress has a complete list of the amendments to be considered.

UPDATE: Oberstar's amendment passed.

Question of the day

Was Joel Kotkin always this loopy?

Taking a moment to appreciate Obama's words

In the wake of President Barack Obama's speech on Monday, the media -- including our own Kate and Sarah -- have scurried to report on the implications, ramifications, and other -ications of the emissions issue. Good stuff, and important. But could we take a step back for just a moment?

Consider what your president said:

Government investment in the Midwest will grease the skids for cap-and-trade

The New York Times, in an article entitled, "Geography is dividing Democrats over energy," makes much of an alleged split between policymakers on the coasts, vs. those in the Midwest and Plains states. Somehow coal and manufacturing are grouped together, challenging a concern for global warming:

"There's a bias in our Congress and government against manufacturing, or at least indifference to us, especially on the coasts," said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. "It's up to those of us in the Midwest to show how important manufacturing is. If we pass a climate bill the wrong way, it will hurt American jobs and the American economy, as more and more production jobs go to places like China, where it's cheaper."

Since many, if not most, of my posts attempt to explain why manufacturing and green issues are mutually reinforcing instead of at loggerheads, I find this all very troubling. The problem seems to be that a cap-and-trade policy would make coal more expensive, thus making electricity for manufacturing more expensive. In addition, cap-and-trade might make energy-intensive industries, such as steel and chemicals, more expensive as well.

I think the way to square this circle is to pair cap-and-trade with direct governmental investment to assist coal dependent areas turn to green energy. In other words, if cap-and-trade legislation was passed along with funding to build the wind and solar systems needed to replace the coal plants (and the attendant electrical grid upgrades), then nobody would be worse off. In fact, the Midwest and other manufacturing states would prosper by manufacturing the very wind turbines and solar panels that would be used to replace the coal plants as well as generating any potential on-site solar and wind power. But that would require big bucks from the federal government.

Unless cap-and-trade is accompanied by direct funding for clean energy construction, I'm afraid cap-and-trade will be in big trouble in Congress.

NYT fails to acknowledge the job-creation opportunities from climate legislation

On the front page of Wednesday's NYT, we learned that Midwestern Democrats hate the climate. Or something. The ostensible point of the article was to highlight the geographical split between the climate change policymakers from the Obama administration and the House -- predominantly from the East and West coasts -- and the moderate Midwestern and Plains-state Democrats in the Senate who, according to the NYT, actually care about jobs.

For the record, the article, while admitting that President Barack Obama is, you know, Midwestern, ignored the fact that Ray LaHood and Tom Vilsack, Secretaries of Transportation and Agriculture, respectively, 1) are also from the Midwest, and 2) will have a significant role in devising an economy-wide solution to climate change.

And this is not to underplay the legitimate concerns that representatives from coal-dependent manufacturing states have. But this mostly just points to the greater weakness of the article -- the way it plays into the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe. This from the same newspaper that could write a feature on the tremendous job creation underway in Iowa related to wind-turbine manufacturing, a serious growth industry given that the nearby Plains states are considered the "so-called Saudi Arabia of wind." Keep in mind that enormous wind turbines will likely never be imported from abroad since one of these monstrous steel blades can barely fit on an oversize tractor-trailer much less be flown around the world on a 747. Indeed, the industry's potential for the Midwest led President Obama to visit a turbine factory in Ohio just the other week.

McCain's adviser on the censorship of climate information under Bush

"I don't think there's anything with the Bush administration's censoring of documents that has helped them make their case for their stance on climate change. It's a disgrace. Have the information out, have the debate, and win on the merits. Don't win on the editing process."

-- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to John McCain's failed presidential campaign, at a panel on "Repairing the Republican Brand"

Sierra Club leader discusses plans for his new role as chairman

Last Friday, long-time Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope announced that he is stepping down and moving to a new role as chairman of the group.

The move comes after 17 years at the helm, and just days after a more environment-minded president took office, prompting some to wonder what Pope has up his sleeve. In his new role, he'll be focusing primarily on climate change work, so we dropped him a line to get more details.

Grist: What prompted the change in position now, right after a new president was sworn in who seems likely to be much more sympathetic to green issues?

Carl Pope: The new administration and Congress offer so many opportunities to move our agenda that I wanted to focus more energy on the outside role, and less on management.

Grist: How will your role at the organization change? What will be the relationship between you and the new executive director?

Pope: After the transition, I'll be doing strategy, political, and fund-raising work -- and the new ED will be leading the organization and managing the staff. We'll both report to the board.

Grist: In the new role, you're going to be focusing primarily on climate policy. What are your plans in that area? What do you hope that the new focus will allow you to do?

Pope: We've launched an ambitious Climate Recovery Partnership, with three key goals: cut greenhouse pollution to the level scientists tell us the atmosphere can handle, leverage natural ecosystems to help protect landscapes and human communities during the coming period of unstable climate, and then eventually restore the climate by allowing enhanced forests, soils, grasslands, and oceans to gradually sequester the excess CO2 emitted over the last century. It's the most ambitious, broad-scale program I know of -- and I want to help make very bit of it hum.