Climate Politics

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."

Adopting tougher emissions standards, new eco-label in Washington

California gets all the glory. As Kate mentioned, President Obama has ordered the EPA to reconsider a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. It's that "13 other states" phrase that should be most important to Puget Sound readers, as Washington is one of the bunch.

Along with Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, Washington has pledged to adopt California's standards, which would aim to reduce vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent by 2016.

So what has to happen here once the California waiver is OK'd? Well, technically, nothing. Once those stricter standards are approved for California, they'll go into effect here in Washington, starting with the 2011 model year vehicles (which you'll start to see on dealer lots next year). That is, unless state courts get involved. According to Sandy Howard of Washington's Department of Ecology, there are still some pending state lawsuits that could affect the overall outcome.

Well, if we can't force automakers to build greener cars, how about shaming consumers into buying greener cars?

EPA administrator details her priorities to staffers

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a memo on Friday highlighting her top priorities for the agency and the philosophy she will use in setting policy.

"Science must be the backbone for EPA programs. The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science," she wrote. "The President believes that when EPA addresses scientific issues, it should rely on the expert judgment of the Agency's career scientists and independent advisors. When scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted by political agendas, Americans can lose faith in their government to provide strong public health and environmental protection."

Jackson took a specific swipe at the Bush administration's policies in this regard. "The laws that Congress has written and directed EPA to implement leave room for policy judgments," she said. "However, policy decisions should not be disguised as scientific findings. I pledge that I will not compromise the integrity of EPA's experts in order to advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome."

She also outlined her top five issues:

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has pledged to make responding to the threat of climate change a high priority of his administration. He is confident that we can transition to a low-carbon economy while creating jobs and making the investment we need to emerge from the current recession and create a strong foundation for future growth. I share this vision. EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President. As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing EPA's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.

• Improving air quality. The nation continues to face serious air pollution challenges, with large areas of the country out of attainment with air-quality standards and many communities facing the threat of toxic air pollution. Science shows that people's health is at stake. We will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand.

• Managing chemical risks. More than 30 years after Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act, it is clear that we are not doing an adequate job of assessing and managing the risks of chemicals in consumer products, the workplace and the environment. It is now time to revise and strengthen EPA's chemicals management and risk assessment programs.

• Cleaning up hazardous-waste sites. EPA will strive to accelerate the pace of cleanup at the hundreds of contaminated sites across the country. Turning these blighted properties into productive parcels and reducing threats to human health and the environment means jobs and an investment in our land, our communities and our people.

• Protecting America's water. EPA will intensify our work to restore and protect the quality of the nation's streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers. The Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, to address our neglected urban rivers, to strengthen drinking-water safety programs, and to reduce pollution from non-point and industrial dischargers.

Clinton taps Todd Stern as her climate envoy

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that Todd Stern will serve as her special envoy for climate change, signaling that the issue will be a key one for her department.

In this role, Stern will be the country's lead climate negotiator at the United Nations and other international summits.

"President Obama and Secretary Clinton have left no doubt that a new day is dawning in the U.S. approach to climate change and clean energy. The time for denial, delay and dispute is over," said Stern at a press conference today announcing his appointment.

"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base," he said. "But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century."

Stern, who served as an adviser to the Obama transition team on environmental issues, was an assistant and staff secretary to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998. He was the senior White House negotiator for the Kyoto negotiations and coordinated the administration's Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999. From 1999 to 2001, he worked at the Department of Treasury as an adviser to the secretary. He was an adjunct lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund after leaving government.

Stern now works as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He drafted a proposal for creating a National Energy Council, an idea published in CAP's Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President. He is also a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where he is the vice chair of the firm's Public Policy and Strategy practice.

Stern's background on both the climate issue and the inner workings of the White House signal that he's likely to play a big role in international negotiations for the State Department, and that it will be a key issue under the new Secretary of State.

Clinton echoed as much in her remarks today: "With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy."

It's an open question, however, how Stern will coordinate his actions with Carol Browner, the White House's top adviser for climate and energy issues.

More on Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard

Now that I've had time to review the legislation [PDF] that begat Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard, I offer a few tidbits.

Short version: We're not even going to pretend that coal is clean or cheap anymore. The bill actually defines "clean coal" as high-sulfur coal, and defines "cheap" as being that which doesn't raise electricity rates too fast.

Specifics:

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.

Poll shows more Americans do not believe global warming is result of man-made activity

Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration's transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.