Climate Politics

The chair of the Select Committee on Global Warming weighs in

Congress is about to confront the challenge of coal, and much of what we hope to do to reduce the threat of global warming hinges on these decisions.

There's a useful test to use whenever the challenges of fossil fuel dependence and global warming come up: We must reduce the threat of global warming without worsening our dependence on foreign oil; and we must reduce the threat of oil dependence without worsening global warming.

When it comes to coal, it's that second part of the equation that brings up some sticky issues.

Coal has been a big part of our energy mix, providing the majority of our electricity since the invention of the electric light. It has been a principal source of energy since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution -- a revolution that provided the basis for our economic prosperity, but also produced exponential pollution growth that was the genesis of the global warming issues we face today.

Now is the time for a new Green Revolution. We must combine the economic reforms of a new industrial revolution based on clean energy development with the moral imperative to protect the planet.

But where does that leave coal? Can our reliance on these carbon-packed nuggets of energy survive while we try to ensure the planet survives as well?

Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge … must … jump …

The most powerful force in nature isn't the nuclear force, or anything wimpy like that; it's the force of a bad idea whose moment has arrived.

Whenever I wanted to do something stupid and argued that my friends had done it, Mom would always say, "If Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do that too?"

From The Oregonian:

It’s all about raising the price of carbon

Robert Reich — Secretary of Labor under Clinton, economic policy professor/pundit — has a somewhat confused column up advocating for a "carbon auction." In particular, it’s not clear whether he’s talking about politics or policy, which is a confusion that generally plagues this discussion. He rejects a carbon tax because it will be politically unpopular. […]

Political courage needed for change

Getting our energy policy right does not require new technology, added societal cost, or economic disruption. However, it does require the political courage to question the sacred cows that have shaped 100 years of electric-market regulation.

A few ideas that are missing from the energy debate:

1. Fossil fuel use in the U.S. is split approximately in thirds between transportation fuels, electric power generation, and heat generation (buildings, industrials, etc.). GHG emissions track accordingly.
2. The electric industry is -- with very limited exceptions -- a regulated monopoly, subject to cost-plus pricing. This has been the case for 100 years. In other words, they have had a 100-year incentive to overconsume fossil fuel.
3. Adam Smith never said anything about profits causing the public good. What he did say is that the pursuit of profits in a competitive market engenders the public good. The second half of this clause is entirely missing from the electric sector.

Why this matters:

Hardly new, but brazen nonetheless

Senate Democrats want to pay for renewables with taxes and royalties on oil companies. This pressure is causing the oil lobby to threaten higher gasoline prices: Bill Holbrook, communications director for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, told ABC News that there are conflicting signals about what path the nation will take coming from both […]

A new amendment from Sanders and Clinton

Over at The Hill‘s Congress Blog, Sen. Bernie Sanders touts his green-collar jobs amendment to the energy bill, which will come up for debate this week. (Sen. Clinton also put her name on it.) Great to see this issue getting attention. See, again: Van Jones.

So says Jim Henley, and yours truly

Jim Henley says that "energy independence" is the most ridiculous phrase in the American political lexicon: The concept of "energy independence" is a sham. I think it’s generally code for "Then we can stop being nice to the fvcking A-rabs," but this gets gussied up with terms like "instability" and references to Hugo Chavez, who […]

Why does Bush never veto legislation?

Because he can just direct federal agencies to ignore it instead. And speaking of corrupt federal agencies, check out the latest clowning at Interior, involving Steven Griles, one of the A-list hacks of the Bush years. The cojones on these guys …

More victories

Sweet! Here’s a press release I just got from Friends of the Earth: —– WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today voted against two attempts to encourage the use of liquid coal, rejecting a pair of amendments to the energy bill that would have alternately mandated 6 billion gallons of liquid coal use annually by 2022 […]

We Can’t Bear to Look

U.S. Senate squares off on ambitious energy bill All eyes are on the Senate this week as it debates a controversial Democrat-penned energy bill. (Hey! We said “all eyes”! Don’t go away.) The legislation contains several provisions that make Big Oil, Big Auto, and Big Republicans squirm: it would shift nearly $15 billion in tax […]