Climate Politics

How smart climate policy can cut our energy costs

True confessions: I love weatherstripping. And programmable thermostats. And insulation -- all kinds. Oh, and efficient shower heads with "Navy shower" shut-off valves. And high-efficiency appliances. And waste-water heat recovery systems. You get the idea: I actually enjoy the process of making buildings more energy wise -- enjoy as in, "Yippee, it's Saturday! Where's my caulk gun?" So today's topic is especially near to my heart: the role in climate policy of low-income weatherization programs and related efficiency upgrades for working families.

A quick review: climate change is economically unfair by nature; it punishes those least to blame. Auctioned cap-and-trade can counteract this injustice. I've already written about two ways to seize this opportunity: distribute the money from the auction of carbon allowances as equal dividend checks to every citizen ("cap-and-share"), or make sure dividends get to low-income families who are hardest hit by rising energy prices ("cap-and-buffer").

A third option is to invest auction proceeds in energy efficiency in ways that specially benefit working families, by weatherizing homes, for example, or improving the efficiency of household appliances. (Let's call it "cap-and-caulk.")

Ralph Nader chooses running mate

Ralph Nader has chosen former San Francisco City Supervisor Matt Gonzalez as a running mate for his 2008 presidential bid. Gonzalez was elected as a San Francisco supervisor in 2000 — the first Green Party candidate to hold the job. In 2003, Gonzalez narrowly lost a bid for San Francisco mayor to Gavin Newsom, the […]

Suboleski withdraws; remaining Appalachian mountaintops breathe sigh of relief

A while back I noted that Bush had nominated one Stanley Suboleski for the position of assistant secretary for fossil energy at the DOE, where he would "oversee projects such as developing clean-coal technologies and carbon sequestration, and polices related to fossil fuels" — including FutureGen, which the dept. recently shitcanned. Suboleski is a long-time […]

Global warming solution studies overestimate costs, underestimate benefits

Dan Weiss, the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has written an excellent piece on why we can expect a series of flawed economic analyses of the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) in the coming months:

Many of these studies will likely predict that the reductions of greenhouse gases required by the cap-and-trade system will lead to huge hikes in electric rates, reductions in jobs, and all sorts of other economic havoc.

But these studies also have one other common element: They will eventually be proven wrong once the program is underway.

These studies base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set. The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act anticipates the need for innovation and creates economic incentives to spur engineers and managers to devise technologies and methods to meet the greenhouse gas reduction requirements more cheaply.

This isn't the first time that pollution control studies have produced inaccurate predictions about the future. Remember what analysts predicted about acid rain controls from 1989 to 1990?

And the article continues on to review that history and then look at the important reports of McKinsey & Co and Nicholas Stern, which makes clear the cost of action is far, far lower than the cost of inaction.

If you're interested in the IPCC's take on this -- they explain why the literature is clear that action is not costly -- this post summarizes what they report.

Renewable-energy bill passes House, likely to be short-lived

By a vote of 236-182, the House of Representatives has approved legislation that would boost renewable-energy tax incentives by repealing $18 billion in tax breaks currently enjoyed by oil and gas companies. Take a moment to enjoy that small victory, because the bill faces steep odds in the Senate, and President Bush has promised to […]

New Canadian budget supports dirty energy industries, disses renewables

More than a year ago, I wrote about Stephane Dion's election as Liberal leader, and was guardedly optimistic about what it meant for Canadian environmentalists. Let's just say that the last year has been pretty disappointing.

The latest came yesterday, after the Conservative government announced a budget that shovelled hundreds of millions of dollars toward fossil fuels and nuclear power. Dion has said his party will support the budget and not trigger an election.

How bad is this budget?

Well, probably the best indication is normally mild-mannered Tyler Hamilton's reaction:

New subsidies for the coal, oil and nuclear industries and new handouts to major automakers. No mention of climate change. No extension of incentives for renewables. The cancelling of incentives for buying energy efficient vehicles. Dismissal, once again, of a carbon tax.

I think I'm going to throw up. We're screwed.

House tax package

The House just passed the tax package that was voted down late last year as part of the energy bill. It contains tax incentives for renewables, paid for by removing some of the Big Oil subsidies from the 2005 Energy Bill. It also closes a fuel efficiency loophole for SUVs. More later.

The Washington Post lamely attacks Obama’s climate ideas

Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby, in an absurdly titled column, "Obama's Missing Ideas," proves once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Obama's ideas about climate solutions are probably the very last place one can find something missing.

Obama has a terrific climate plan, full of winning ideas, as I have blogged many times. Yet Mallaby claims that "good ideas are actually quite scarce. Just take a look at climate change."

Mallaby's "case" is based on two climate ideas many people have always thought were lame (which he never actually bothers to link to Obama), one climate problem that is pretty straightforward to solve, and one idea Mallaby thinks is new that is in fact quite old, is not really a climate idea, and as such has limited climate benefits.

First he says, "A couple of years back, ethanol was touted as a good answer to global warming." Uh, no. Corn ethanol, which is what he attacks, was not considered a "good answer to global warming" by any energy or climate expert I have ever met. To the extent climate advocates even tolerated the fuel, it was strictly as a bridge to cellulosic ethanol. To the extent that corn ethanol was supported on policy grounds by politicians [as opposed to support for the farmers or a desire not to offend Iowans], it is primarily from people who are concerned about our dependence on imported oil, not global warming.

Does Mallaby even know that Obama supports "a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard," which would block any fuel that increases greenhouse-gas emissions -- or that he supports accelerating the development of cellulosic (i.e., low-carbon) ethanol? These are good ideas.

Next Mallaby complains about "carbon trading with developing countries":

State govs embrace the range of ‘alternative fuels,’ from nukes to clean coal to biofuels

The National Governors Association has linked up with “a team of Wal-Mart energy experts” to “green the capitols.” That’s fantastic — and I’m sure it will draw well-deserved huzzahs in certain green circles. (It’s touching to see Wal-Mart giving back some of what it has been siphoning off in state taxes!) But read a little […]

Ellen DeGeneres endorses Hillary

Clinton, that is. Not Duff.