Climate Politics

Climate action plans for the first 100 days and beyond

I am blown away by the depth and scope of the nonpartisan Presidential Climate Action Project. Its centerpiece is a first-100-days plan, detailed in a 300-page report, covering issues ranging from energy policy and green collar jobs to the farm bill and ethanol subsidies to the Law of the Sea. My only quibble is the continued support for grain ethanol -- although the project does advocate quick turnover to cellulosic sources -- how quick that evolution will be is a huge outstanding question. Apart from the report, the PCAP website also features a very cool Who's Who in Climate Action, a database of climate professionals and a Contact the Candidates link, where you can submit your own suggestions to the presidential hopefuls (the page needs to be updated; although I'm sure Giuliani would still welcome email about the state of the planet).

And PCAP isn't the only player in the game. As Elizabeth Kolbert reports, a number of think tanks and coalitions have been cranking out climate recommendations for the next president of the United States. Whoever that turns out to be, the next president's problem won't be a lack of guidelines or expert advice ... if anything, it will be the opposite.

Cheney perpetuates myth about China-Cuba oil partnership

During his “drill, drill, drill” rant yesterday, Dick Cheney complained that Cuba and China are drilling for oil closer to the coast of Florida than American companies are currently allowed. It’s become a common talking point for Republicans arguing that more areas should be opened to drilling — but, reports McClatchy, it appears to be […]

Dingell promises climate bill friendlier to manufacturers

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) has been saying for months now that a climate bill from his committee is on the way. Yesterday he talked about his pending legislation to industry folks, promising it would be friendlier to their interests than the Senate bill that failed last week: Dingell told the […]

What we learned from the stymied Climate Security Act, and what comes next

After months of engine-revving, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act sputtered to a halt in the Senate last week. Now attention has turned to what was learned — or wasn’t — and how things might play out the next time a climate bill makes it this far. Despite what looked from the outside like an unproductive […]

Cheney: ‘Drill, drill, drill’

Dick Cheney has weighed in with his answer to the nation’s energy woes: Vice President Cheney yesterday called for a substantial increase in domestic drilling for oil and other natural resources, including in environmentally sensitive areas, saying that only increased production — and not new technology — will satisfy the nation’s demand for energy. “We […]

Ragin’ Cajun for Gore

“I think if I was Senator Obama I would say the biggest economic problem we face is the biggest national security problem and the biggest environmental problem. And if I were him, I would ask Al Gore to serve as his vice president, his energy czar, in his administration to reduce our consumption and reliance […]

House committee hears testimony on the future of oil (hint: it’s dim)

With gas prices at record highs and the Senate engaged in a fruitless struggle to find a new way forward on energy policy, the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming held a timely hearing this morning on “The Future of Oil.” The general consensus: the long-term prognosis for global oil supply and […]

Everyone wants a piece of the climate bill pie

The debate over the Climate Security Act bill has made it clear that trillions are at stake in global warming legislation. No surprise, then, that the Senate power brokers don't want Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works committee to have the only say on who gets what.

E&E Daily ($ub. req'd) has the story of how the climate bill is likely to have a much longer and far more tangled journey next year:

New surveys suggest changing views on biofuels

Biofuel policy has made it to the polls. Yesterday, the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonprofit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C., released the results of a survey (PDF) conducted at the beginning of this month which claims to have found that most Americans -- "including those in the Farm Belt" -- want Congress to reduce or eliminate the mandated use of corn ethanol.

In response to the key question, "What do you think Congress should do now?" with respect to the Renewable Fuels Standard (which last December raised the minimum volume of biofuels used in the United States from 7.5 billion gallons a year in 2012 to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, of which 15 billion gallons is expected to be supplied by "conventional biofuel" -- ethanol derived from corn starch -- by 2015), 42 percent of the participants in the survey thought that that the mandate should be eliminated to reduce ethanol production and use. Of the rest:

• 25 percent wanted the mandate to be partly eliminated to reduce ethanol production and use;
• 16 percent wanted it left unchanged;
• Six percent wanted it partly expanded to increase ethanol production and use;
• and 2 percent wanted it significantly expanded to increase ethanol production and use.

Nine percent were undecided, didn't know what to answer, or refused to answer.

Even among people living in the Farm Belt, 25 percent percent said they wanted the ethanol mandate repealed entirely, and another 30 percent wanted it scaled back.

The silver-lining of Lieberman-Warner’s demise

The demise of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill may not be a bad thing if it spurs environmentalists and politicians to ask: Is this the best way to cap carbon?

Let's be clear what Lieberman-Warner was. Yes, it contained a carbon cap. But mostly it was about spending or giving away trillions of dollars. It was, as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) put it, "the mother and father of all earmarks," and every lobbyist in town was at the trough.