Climate Politics

Delay makes environmental catastrophe more likely

This is the second in a series; the first is here.

We've covered two reasons Environmental Defense is pushing for passage of climate legislation in 2008 -- the politics will be very much the same in 2009, and we don't want to gamble away a good bill on the chance of a perfect one someday.

Today I'll look at a third reason: The price of waiting, even a year or two, is simply too high. Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they've been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It's crucial that we start aggressively cutting emissions as soon as possible.

Here's the math.

Source: the national allowance account for the years 2012-2020 from the S.2191 as reported out of the EPW Committee. The emissions growth from 2005 to 2013 is assumed to be 1.1 percent (an average of the 2004 and 2005 rate reported by the EPA [PDF]).

Scenario one: The Climate Security Act is passed into law this year, and takes effect in 2012. To comply with the emissions cap, covered sources would have to cut annual emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. By 2020, they would be emitting at 15 percent below the starting point in 2012.

Scenario two: We delay enacting legislation by two years, holding everything else constant. We pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2010, and it takes effect in 2014. To meet the same cumulative emissions cuts, emissions would have to fall by 4.3 percent per year -- over twice as quickly -- and we'd have to do it year after year until 2020, just to get to the same place. By 2020, emissions from covered sources would have to be cut 23 percent below the starting point in 2014.

Carl Pope of the Sierra Club lays out a blueprint for an effective climate bill

The following is a guest essay by Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

-----

There are moments when a choice of pathways shapes the future -- and makes success either feasible or impossible.

In light of the fact that all of the remaining leading presidential candidates call for some kind of action on global warming, and the Lieberman-Warner bill is already working its way through the Senate, almost everyone recognizes that sometime in the next few years the United States will limit the amount of global warming pollution that our transportation system, power plants, factories, and other sources can emit.

The most likely mechanism for tackling global warming is a so-called cap-and-trade system, whereby a declining cap is put on total emissions with individual emissions permits being traded amongst emitters. As with most things, the devil is very much in the details. Depending on how it is designed, such a system can be heavily tilted toward the interests of the planet or, as some would prefer, the interests of polluters.

Thirty-seven years ago, a similar choice faced the young environmental movement. Congress was about to pass the regulatory foundation of the environmental age -- the Clean Air Act. Environmental advocates sought to require every power plant, refinery, chemical facility, and factory to use the modern pollution control technology then coming onto the market. Industry argued that we should, instead, treat new sources of air pollution differently from old ones -- by making sure the new power plants were very clean and leaving the old ones, more or less, alone -- because old sources would shortly be retired and replaced with newer, cleaner versions. Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie, fearing that industry would block him on other points, acceded. Environmentalists -- including my new-to-the movement, 25-year-old self -- went along.

Fast-forward to present day: the carbon industries are lobbying to get a deal done this year that would give away carbon permits free of charge to existing polluters -- bribing the sluggish, and slowing down innovation. And politicians are telling us that while it would be better to auction these permits and make polluters pay for putting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, creating that market unfortunately gets in the way of the politics.

We are being urged to compromise -- to put a system in place quickly, even if it is the wrong system. Given that we only have one chance to get this right before it's too late, our top priority must be to make sure that we do not settle prematurely and sign a weak bill into law in the name of doing something about global warming. With momentum for strong action and a friendlier Congress and White House building every day, it's no coincidence that some wish to settle their accounts now.

Obama lauds green jobs and clean tech in economy speech

In a speech on Wednesday at a GM auto plant in Wisconsin, Barack Obama outlined his economic agenda for the country. He described his stimulus plan, promising to boost green jobs, help the middle class, dole out tax cuts, negotiate worker and environmental protections in upcoming free-trade agreements -- and, to help pay for much of it, end the costly war in Iraq.

The environmental highlights of the speech are below (audio available here):

Opinion writer suggests efficiency stimulus would be more effective

An opinion writer at the Houston Chronicle says: Congress missed a major opportunity with the stimulus package. They could have invested in something that would have been good for the consumer (encouraging energy savings), the environment (reducing emissions) and the economy (stimulating development of products that represent our future). The magic elixir? Energy efficiency is […]

House Democrats make another push for renewable-energy credits

Democrats in the House of Representatives have introduced legislation that would extend renewable-energy incentives, which were booted out of both the recent energy bill and the economic stimulus bill. The House legislation would provide tax breaks for investments in energy efficiency and solar, wind, and geothermal power, at an expected cost of $17.5 billion over […]

Clinton and Obama talk up the promise of a green economy

Still glowing after racking up three more decisive primary victories in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., Barack Obama today is giving a major speech on the economy at a General Motors plant in Wisconsin. Stay tuned to Grist for the green take. Hillary Clinton made a less ballyhooed speech at a GM plant in Maryland […]

Hillary Clinton touts her green cred in an Us Weekly spread

Us Weekly, Feb. 18 In an effort to humanize and humorize her image, Hillary Clinton gamely went along with a four-page spread for the latest issue of celeb rag Us Weekly, offering comments on some of her fashion misses of yesteryear. Explaining a huge, garish coat she wore in 2000, she says, “I’m a big […]

London mayor triples fee for most-polluting cars entering city center

London Mayor Ken Livingstone tripled the fee drivers of the most-polluting vehicles will have to pay to enter the city center beginning in October, from about $16 to $49. The so-called congestion charge was introduced in 2003 in an effort to decrease traffic and greenhouse-gas emissions, encouraging Londoners and visitors to use public transportation instead […]

Obama says will move immediately on international climate pact

Prior to his weekend wins in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Barack Obama promised to begin developing the U.S. position on an international pact to halt global warming now, instead of waiting until 2009. “I’ve been in conversations with former Vice President [Al] Gore repeatedly, and his recommendation, which I think is […]

Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control.

The so-called incandescent light bulb ban (not actually a ban) included as part of the recent energy bill has prompted a low-level but consistent set of complaints that deserve further consideration, because they betray a fair amount of confusion about which policy tools to break out for which issues.

On the right, the reaction to the new lighting efficiency standard has ranged from hysterical whining to hysterical snark. But even on the left, it's fairly common to run across the high-minded opinion that finicky legislation like the lighting efficiency standard only wastes time and stirs up needless recrimination. Instead we should set a price on carbon, and let the market sort out the rest.

It's an excellent theory, one that I subscribe to under most circumstances, but sometimes command and control really is just the thing. The math on light bulbs is pretty easy to run. Follow along if you're interested, or just skip the next two paragraphs.