Climate Politics

The efficient alternative to coal power in China

China's rapacious coal plant building is neither moral nor sustainable, as discussed in Part I. Yet many supply-side alternatives, like nuclear and hydro, are problematic for the country.

What should China do to satisfy its insatiable thirst for energy? Go back to their amazing energy efficiency policies of the 1980s and early 1990s.

China's energy history can be divided into several phases, as we learn from Dr. Mark Levine, cofounder of the Beijing Energy Efficiency Center (see terrific video here).

The first phase (1949-1980) was a "Soviet Style" energy policy during which there were subsidized energy prices, no concern for the environment, and energy usage that rose faster than economic growth (GDP).

The second phase (1981-1999) was "California on steroids," when the country embraced an aggressive push on energy management and energy efficiency, surpassing the efficiency efforts California achieved since the mid-1970s. This came about as a result of Deng Xiaoping heeding the advice of a group of leading academic experts who suggested a new approach to energy. Chinese strategies included:

China’s coal policy is breathtaking (literally)

Yes, America's climate policy is immoral. But that doesn't make China's rapacious coal-plant building moral. The N.Y. Times has published the sobering numbers, which bear repeating:

The country built 114,000 megawatts of fossil-fuel-based generating capacity last year alone, almost all coal-fired, and is on course to complete 95,000 megawatts more this year.

For comparison, Britain has 75,000 megawatts in operation, built over a span of decades.

China is now the main reason the world is recarbonizing -- the carbon content of the average unit of energy produced has stopped its multi-decade decline, as noted. Yes, America is still responsible for a great deal more cumulative emissions, which is what drive concentrations, and China is doing much of its dirty manufacturing for U.S. consumers (I never said our hands were clean).

But China seems to have adopted a policy of building as many coal plants as humanly possible until they are forced to stop -- or, I suspect, until they get a deal that pays the country to shut them down (much as they have gamed the clean development mechanism under Kyoto).

If China won't alter its coal policy to make its environment livable today even with the Olympics coming, it will require very strong international leadership (led by an America with a moral climate policy of our own) to have any chance at making them alter it to preserve a livable climate in the future.

So why doesn't China pursue alternatives? The NYT story explains:

Activists ask Congress to close regulatory loopholes for oil and gas companies

At a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing yesterday — Wait! It’s not as boring as it sounds! — scientists and conservationists asked Congress to plug legislative loopholes that exempt oil and gas companies from some regulatory oversight. Particularly of interest to green and health advocates are exemptions from regulation of a natural-gas-gleaning […]

The former governor of North Dakota loves biofuel and GMOs

Speaking yesterday at a gathering of the Grocery Manufacturers Association — a trade group whose member list reads like a directory of multinational food corporations — President Bush waxed coy about his new choice for USDA secretary. This afternoon I’m going to name a new Secretary of Agriculture. I’m not going to tell you who […]

U.S. House passes groundbreaking mining bill

The U.S. House of Representatives has, in a fit of sanity, voted to make mining companies pay royalties on minerals they dig up on public land. By a vote of 244-166, the House approved the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act, which would reform a 135-year-old law that President Ulysses S. Grant signed to encourage development […]

America’s Climate Security Act passes out of subcommittee

America's Climate Security Act -- aka the Lieberman-Warner bill -- passed through its first markup hearing today, but not without losing support from the Senate's most vigilant advocate for action against climate change, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

The hearing was, in a sense, a tête-à-tête between Sanders and the bill's primary author, deal-maker extraordinare Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.). It was a chance for Sanders to attempt to improve the bill in ways he must have known would be rejected, and a way for Lieberman to do the actual rejecting -- if only to keep his fragile coalition together.

All but one of Sanders' proposed amendments failed badly, including bids to strengthen the auction of pollution allocations, lower the cap on emissions, earmark subsidies for renewable energies, demand accountability from the auto industry, and diminish industry's capacity to stall simply by buying carbon offsets.

In most cases, the only man voting alongside Sanders to improve the bill was New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg.

Could intercity public transit finally be getting some support from Congress?

I don’t have time to do this justice right now, but it’s quite exciting to hear that Amtrak may finally be getting some support from Congress. I’ve never understood why Amtrak is supposed to be self-financing, and money to Amtrak is considered "subsidies." Nobody says that about roads, on which we spend exponentially more taxpayer […]

The vote

After Sens. Barrasso and Baucus (D-Mont.) spent a few minutes fawning over coal, they moved to the vote.

Here's the roll call.

Yea:

Baucus
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Warner (by proxy)

No:

Isakson
Barrasso
Sanders

Indeed, Sanders rejected it. But, as they say, the ayes have it, and it will be reported favorably to the full committee.

Barrasso and the supposed good will in the GOP

Barrasso (R-Wy.) wants the bill to sunset after five years. This amendment will die, fortunately, but don't forget it. It's emblematic of the supposed goodwill the GOP has in this process.

P.S. Lieberman is drowning Lautenberg in obsequiousness. It looks to me as if the chairman has simply accepted the likelihood that Bernie Sanders will oppose this thing and he's counting on the New Jersey senator to pull the bill over the top. The vote's coming up in moments.

Sanders again!

John Barrasso (R-Wy.) has proposed about seven of his own amendments. Most have been either withdrawn or defeated. The others are fairly weak -- so forgive me for skipping them.

Sanders, on the other hand, is trying desperately to strengthen this thing, and is meeting with almost no success. He wants to limit the total tonnage of carbon that companies are allowed to offset (in lieu of direct reductions). But Lieberman ... does not.

He also wants to increase the mandatory emission reductions under the cap -- to require 80 percent reductions, mandatory reductions, by 2050.

This is key. The numbers we've heard from Senator Lieberman -- that his bill will lead to emissions reductions in the neighborhood of 65 percent -- are based in large part on projections. ACSA's mandatory emissions reductions -- the ones under the cap -- are really very weak.

But not too weak for Joe Lieberman.

Sanders has said this is his most important amendment. It's going to die. So, possibly, will the chances that he'll vote yes on the bill.