Climate Politics

Transportation nominee's confirmation hearing indefinitely postponed

There was plenty of confirmation hearing action on Capitol Hill today, but apparently Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), President-elect Obama's pick to head the Department of Transportation, was not a part of it. He was slated to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee this morning, but a notice posted on the hearing room door announced that the hearing has been postponed to an indefinite later date.

The New York Times quotes an anonymous Senate aide as saying LaHood's paperwork had not yet been sent over by the president-elect's transition staff.

The enviro angle on LaHood, of course, is that he'll have a role in spending a portion of Obama's big stimulus bill. Among other things, greens will be pushing for more mass transit funding, not more roads.

Vilsack glides through Senate Ag Committee confirmation hearing

Tom Vilsack, Obama's pick for USDA chief, made pleasant conversation Wednesday with his new (and old) best friends on the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee. As a confirmation hearing, the event had about as much drama as a John Deere combine gliding through a vast field, harvesting corn. The process was smooth and efficient, and no one seemed to break a sweat.

I watched much of the hearing live via a stream on the committee website. About the closest thing to genuine tension I saw came from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who seemed worried that Vilsack might support limits on subsidies to his beloved cotton farmers. (Chambliss worships free markets -- unless and until they interfere with the flow of government cash to his cotton cronies.)

Vilsack did say some encouraging stuff, including (from Congressional Quarterly):

Conservative touts gas tax as cure to all ills, alternative to other climate/energy policies

The Weekly Standard cover story last week was by Charles Krauthammer: "The Case for a Net-Zero Gas Tax." Joe Klein calls it "an absolutely compelling, and completely unexpected, argument" and the tax itself "without doubt, the most elegant way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil."

Your honor, I object.

First off, it isn't unexpected -- Krauthammer has argued for a gas tax before. And you'll notice that more and more conservatives are popping up in favor of refunded gas or carbon taxes. (See, e.g., here.)

Second of all, it isn't particularly compelling. In fact, it's full of howlers. More on that later.

Third of all, re: "elegant," I can't speak to its aesthetic appeal, but a gas tax is most certainly not the fastest or cheapest way to lower carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

Fourth of all, if you find yourself agreeing with Charles Krauthammer, one of the most vicious, mendacious soldiers in the right-wing chickenhawk brigade (see, e.g., here for his argument for torture), it's time for some soul searching.

After all, Krauthammer is quite clear that he views a gas tax as an alternative, not a compliment, to government investments or regulations. Indeed, he seems to think a $1 gas tax would single-handedly drop U.S. oil use, cut world oil prices, cripple hostile regimes, and make the U.S. energy independent. And maybe increase your sex appeal. And it could do all this while obviating or eliminating other environmental policies.

On regulation:

Paulson brags on his delayer boss

This 'graph on the WSJ blog just about made me choke:

Of course, the obsession over what do to with developing countries -- especially China -- is one of President Bush's biggest environmental legacies, Secretary Paulson said, continuing the administration's week-long farewell tour. By relentlessly focusing on the role of developing-world emissions, President Bush "changed the debate," Sec. Paulson said.

Two points. First, the strategy of delaying U.S. action on climate change by recourse to fear-mongering about China and India is not a Bush invention. Conservatives (and, er, Democrats) have been pulling that crap since the '90s. That was the basis for the Senate rejecting Kyoto via the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

Second, it is true that Bush has kept this delaying tactic at the center of the national debate. What is truly mystifying is why a Bush administration official who purports to be concerned about climate change would boast about it.

No leaky

From a story on Congressional tensions with Obama comes the news that the transition team apparently didn't tell anyone in that body about its upcoming cabinet choices:

Sutley testifies before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, also appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning, along with EPA-nominee Lisa Jackson. Sutley, 46, is currently the deputy mayor for energy and environment for the city of Los Angeles.

Here an excerpt from Sutley's prepared opening statement on her plans for the CEQ:

My focus, if confirmed as the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, will be to ensure that there is a strong science and policy basis for our environmental policy, to move the nation to greater reliance on clean energy and increase energy security, to combat global warming while growing the green economy, to protect public health and the environment, especially in vulnerable communities, and to protect and restore our great ecosystems.

My parents came to the United States in search of a better life. I learned the values of hard work and integrity from them. They also taught me how important it is to give back to the community, and I have devoted much of my career to public service. I have tried to honor those values by working toward protecting our communities and our environment. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the Congress to carry out the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act and the mission of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Confirmation hearing for Obama's EPA pick kicks off

Lisa Jackson, President-elect Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is appearing this morning before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for her confirmation hearing. Jackson, 46, has been the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection since Feb. 2006.

While she's expected to get a mostly warm reception from senators -- even climate skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.) has had nice things to say about her -- it's also likely that contentious issues like perchlorate and criticisms about Jackson from some New Jersey environmentalists will be raised.

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, will also appear before the committee this morning, following Jackson.

Here are some key excerpts from Jackson's prepared opening remarks pertaining to her plans for the U.S. EPA:

Science must be the backbone of what EPA does. The environmental and public health laws Congress has enacted direct the EPA administrator to base decisions on the best available science. EPA's addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the agency's career scientists and independent advisors.

If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policy-makers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.

And here's her take on environment vs. economic development:

The president-elect strongly believes responsible stewardship of our air and water can live side-by-side with robust economic growth. Done properly, these goals can and should reinforce each other.

The president-elect's environmental initiatives are highlighted by five key objectives: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions; reducing other air pollutants; addressing toxic chemicals; cleaning up hazardous-waste sites; and protecting water. These five problems are tough, but so is our resolve to conquer them.

What Obama's picks signal for urban policy

Who are President Obama's key urban policy advisers? What do his pickes for Housing and Urban Development and Transportation say about an Obama urban policy?

No to phony clean coal credits, yes to refundable, renewable tax credits

The green stimulus is beginning to take shape with mostly good stuff in the stocking, except one big lump of coal.

The package is getting bigger -- no surprise. The Washington Post writes:

Congressional leaders and Obama advisers are looking at including as much as $25 billion of energy tax credits in the economic stimulus package in an effort to bolster renewable energy projects, fuel-efficient cars and biodiesel production, said sources familiar with the negotiations ...

The main elements under consideration include a two-year, $8.6 billion extension of the production tax credit [PTC] for renewable energy, an item that favors wind power projects. Obama advisers are considering a proposal from the wind and solar industry that would make those credits refundable or count them against past taxes because many financial firms that provided capital for those projects no longer have taxable income and can't use the credits.

I understand why only a two-year PTC extension is being floated from a narrow stimulus perspective, but seriously, people, it's time for a much longer extension to give the industry firmer ground. The solar investment tax credit got an eight-year extension last year! Is there any possibility that an Obama administration with a Democratic Congress won't eventually extend the PTC that long? So don't play games with the industry. The idea of making the credits refundable is an important one I will elaborate on in part 2.

The bill could also include tax credits for service stations that install high-ethanol-content fuel pumps, a $7,500 tax credit for plug-in vehicles, an extension of the biodiesel credit, and one for coal-fired power plants that capture more than half of their carbon emissions or that could be retrofitted to do so later. There could also be clean-energy credits for rural cooperatives.

Apparently someone missed the memo that plug-ins already have a $7,500 tax credit -- which in any case won't be doing much stimulating since there aren't any plug-ins to stimulate!

Memo to Dems: Please, please, please, do not give a tax credit to any coal-fired plants "that could be retrofitted" for capturing carbon. So-called "capture ready" coal plants are nothing but snake oil, just like clean coal itself.

Congress does not want to be in the business of trying to pass regulations to determine how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin whether it might be easier or harder for some new climate-destroying coal plant to some day integrate carbon capture. Either a new coal plant captures and permanently sequesters the vast majority (not just half) of its carbon emissions now, or it should not be permitted in the first place. Stop trying to fool the public into thinking we can risk building any more new coal plants with unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot.

One of the most exciting stimulus proposals is aimed at boosting clean-energy financing during this credit crunch:

Landrieu serves up monologue on oil during DOE confirmation hearing

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) made two of the more aggressively pro-drilling arguments during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary-nominee Steven Chu. Neither was totally related to Chu's testimony, but both were, er, colorful.

First, Landrieu disputed Chu's citation of the fact that the United States contains only three percent of the world's oil supply, arguing that she believes there is more oil available domestically:

I listened with interest to your comments to Senator Murkowski about the known inventory in the United States of oil and gas and just wanted to point out that the emphasis is on the word known because we believe, many of us, that there are great resources that have yet to be discovered based on the fact that there's never been a comprehensive technology-driven inventory taken of oil and gas resources.

So one of the things that our chairman has been leading the effort and to some degree of success with my support and others, has been to push the United States government on behalf of the taxpayers who might be interested to actually know how much oil and gas they have. And so with so much off limit in the past and with limited access to just look, I would just urge you to be careful about the comment about four percent. It is true. We have four percent of the known reserves, but there is great evidence to suggest that there are lots of reserves that are unknown.

Her second remark pertained to pirates: