Monday, November 13, 2006

Weekly angst

What do election results mean for climate change?


With more environment-friendly people in positions of power in the new Congress, we can expect hearings on Global Warming and legislation to shift tax incentives away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. But will the new leadership be able to pass regulations cutting greenhouse gases? It’s an uphill battle. The votes aren’t there now, the president is firmly opposed, and the oil lobby is out there ready to spend millions to make sure it doesn’t happen.

The oil companies beat down California’s Proposition 87 on Election Day. They spent $95 million to defeat the proposal to tax oil drilling and convert the $4 million collected to renewable energy. The margin was 55-45.

In Boulder, Co., a different approach was successful. That city will tax not the oil companies, but individuals and businesses for excessive energy use. Boulder Issue 202, which passed with 59% of the vote, will raise home energy bills by about $2 a month and those at businesses by up to $35 a month. Boulder already had voted to conform to the Kyoto Protocol by cutting greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. This will help them get there.

The state of Washington also passed a referendum, by a narrow 51.8%, saying that by 2020, 15% of electricity would come from renewable sources. The measure applies to utilities with 25,000 customers or more.

But let’s get back to Washington, D.C.

New direction in Congress
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said one of her top three priorities for the first 100 days is ending tax breaks for big oil and directing the money to renewable energy and other means to achieve energy independence. The incoming Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants to provide tax incentives for alternative energy production. And No. 2 in the Senate, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), is sympathetic about Global Warming. He was a co-sponsor of Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) unsuccessful Climate Stewardship Act.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the most outspoken members on the environment, is in line to be chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She told the Associated Press, “Time is running out [on Global Warming] and we need to move forward.” She said she would use California’s new law, cutting emissions 25% by 2020, as a model. Boxer replaces James Inhofe (R-Okla.) who doesn’t believe in Global Warming. Boxer earlier this year co-sponsored a measure to cut emissions 80% by 2050.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who favors incentives for renewable energy, will take over Energy and Natural Resources, and there already seems to be some cooperation between his staff and Boxer’s.

On the House side, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) will be chairman of Energy and Commerce. He said he plans to hold hearings on Global Warming and push legislation on alternative fuels. Dingell, from Michigan, is a strong supporter of Detroit’s auto industry, so there’s some question how far he’ll be willing to go to curb tailpipe emissions.

Friends of the environment
Environmental groups are happy that many of the people they endorsed were elected Tuesday. And that they defeated Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), who some considered Enemy #1. Pombo, who had been chair of the Natural Resources Committee, was defeated by Jerry McNerny, a wind-power engineer, after Defenders of Wildlife set up an office in his district and allied themselves with the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and Humane Society to get out the vote and donate money. Pombo will be replaced as head of Natural Resources by Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who has a 92% score from the League of Conservation Voters.

Other LCV “Environmental Champions” who won Tuesday were Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Minn.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

Other victories for environmental groups included John Tester (D), an organic farmer, who defeated Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Ron Klein, who beat Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), Bob Casey (D) who handily beat Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and two new governors, Bill Ritter (D) in Colorado and Ted Strickland (D) in Ohio.

“The Congress has been in denial about climate change,” Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) told Environment & Energy Daily. “The Congress is going to change. At least the House is going to change.”

Legislation that got nowhere before is likely to be brought up again after January. Bills are expected from Boxer, Bingaman, McCain, Lieberman, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Environmental groups are poised to work with this Congress and we should be ready to give them our support.

Do something

Now is a good time to write your senators and congressman, asking them to put solutions to Global Warming front and center. Most have a Web page where you can make comments.

News update

1. Africa must adapt to world climate change

Reduction of greenhouse gases must be accompanied by aid to developing countries least able to cope with Global Warming, the author of a new study told the U.N. Framework Conference on Climate Change in Nairobi this week. Africans, who produce the least greenhouse gases, could face severe hunger as extreme weather there limits food production. Africans are already finding it difficult to time the planting of crops because of uncertainty about the weather. Countries giving aid will need to take this into consideration. Africans should plant drought-resistant crops and not rely so much on livestock that could die, said Mario Herrero, co-author of “Mapping Climate Vulnerability in Africa.” Water-conservation projects could help ease the problem. (Source: Reuters AlertNet)

2. EU to make tailpipe emissions cuts mandatory
The European Union is going from voluntary to mandatory emissions regulations after learning some automakers aren’t meeting their goals. Volkswagen, Europe’s largest carmaker, has reduced its emissions by less than half its target. Renault, on the other hand, is on track. A study by the European Federation for Transport and Environment showed that 75% of the 20 major brands were not on track to meet their targets. The new targets will be the same as the old ones (140 milligrams per kilometer by 2008 and 120 by 2012). (Source: Greenwire)

3. Did NASA and NOAA stifle scientists on Global Warming?
At the request of 14 U.S. Senators, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) inspectors general are investigating whether the Bush Administration suppressed scientific research on Global Warming. At issue is whether NOAA officials stopped publication of a report linking the strength of hurricanes to Global Warming and whether NASA kept scientist James Hansen from speaking out after he advocated cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases. (Source: Greenwire)

4. Brazil likely to double consumption of ethanol
Brazil, the world’s main ethanol producer, will likely consume twice as much of the alternative fuel within 10 years, according to JOB Economia, a consultant. Three-quarters of new car sales are for flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on any combination of ethanol and gasoline. In Brazil ethanol is made with sugar cane. Fuel in the country is already 40 percent ethanol. (Sources: Bloomberg and Scientific American)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This week's postings reveal a common theme about propogating waves of change in local and national political climates.

Before hanging our hpoes on a change in political power between national political parties, let us remember who really controls the nation's institutional power.
Change must practically and incrementally accomodate economic forces that, more often than not, dictate political viability.

California's Proposition 87 directly challenged "Big Oil" as a single institution, ignoring its disproportionate political power.

On the other hand (though my libertarian streak opposes it), Boulder, CO's Issue 202 appeased prominent local institutions by imposing only upon individuals and small buisness.

It passed in a city where two of the most influential entities include The National Center for Atmospheric Research (champion of climate science) and, more importantly, Amgen, the world's largest biotech company (a company ready to benefit from any shift in national research funding).

In the case of Washington State, passsing a referrendum that requires 15% of ELECTRICITY be provided by renewable resources by 2020 is not such a stretch, considering that 20% of renewable energy already comes from hydro-electric power, and the Rand think tank has predicted that the US energy generation will be 50% renewable by 2525. (It is also worthy to note that Washington's two most fossile fuel dependent industries, logging and steel, were unthreatened by this vote).

The reson for looking at theae measures with an eye on economic consequences for local industry is simple. Corporate power is even more difficult to navigate at the national level. Except for 87 in California, the authors of these state and local referendums steered cleverly around institutions with substantial economic influence.

Rather than focusing on the environmental consequences of a shift between political parties, let's recognize where the real power lies in order to navigate that power with pragmatic polices.

Kritkrat said...

The National Wildlife Federation's (http://www.nwf.org) main focus is on global warming too, and they are another great resource for global warming information.