Time is running out; deal or no deal for climate agreement at Copenhagen this week

(Photo of session at COP15 from Flickr and UN Climate Talks)

It’s hard enough to get 60 Democrat and Independent senators to agree on a health reform bill. Negotiations just seem to boil it down to the lowest level.

But try negotiating with 15,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries. That’s what’s been going on in Copenhagen the past 9 days. Small wonder they haven’t come up with much.

The poor countries want the rich countries, which caused the problem, to be much more aggressive about cutting emissions and to put up about $500 billion a year to save them from climate change.

And the rich countries want the big emerging economies with significant emissions, like China and India, to be accountable to the rest of the world for their planned cuts in carbon intensity (emissions wouldn't grow as fast as the economy.)

After a week of posturing and casting blame (and a half-day walkout by African and other developing countries), not much has been decided.

Now the top environment ministers and celebrities have arrived. Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prince Charles and N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave them a pep talk and the ministers settled in to try to resolve some things before more than 100 heads of state arrive later this week for the conclusion of the much-touted climate treaty conference, COP15. President Obama will address the group Friday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Yi-Moon arrived, saying, ”Time is running out. There’s no room for posturing and blaming.”

What now?
Will anything come of this conference? There are only 3 days left.

Despite the discord, some environmental leaders think there may be success. A great deal of advance work was done by the U.S., China and India in the past weeks, with their leaders making specific pledges to curb emissions.

One question is whether Obama will be emboldened to up the ante on his original pledge of 17% (over 2005 levels) by 2020, which is only about 3% over the usual baseline 1990. He now has the EPA’s endangerment finding which allows the administration to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as well as a bipartisan “blueprint” for a Senate bill that would meet the House target of 17%. Our offer is pretty pathetic compared with Europe’s and Japan’s. But does he dare roil up a prickly Senate which has yet to pass any climate bill and would have to ratify any international treaty by (omigod) 67 votes. Probably not.

Another question is will China eventually give in and let others monitor its pledged 40-45% drop in intensity.

Funding for poor nations
A third major area to be resolved is how much the rich countries will put up to fund mitigation and adaptation in poor countries. The mitigation helps us all, by keeping GHG out of the air. The adaptation helps poor countries that are already hurting from the climate change that some say doesn’t exist. (Maybe someone from a disappearing island nation will throw a sandal at wacko Sen. James Inhofe, who plans to show up.)

The European Commission, before the conference began, offered $10.8 billion a year for the next 3 years. Japan just agreed to put in $10B a year. The U.S. apparently has offered $1B next year, to be followed by $2B in 2011 and 2012. We’ve also offered to put $85 million a year for 5 years into a clean energy development fund for these nations.

This is not nearly enough, say the developing countries. They want half a trillion. So how much is really needed? Of course it’s impossible to say. But British economist Nicholas Stern said $100B a year by 2020, then double that amount in the following decade. The EU estimated $147B a year by 2020. And the UN is calling for more than $500B a year.

Of course if we did more to curb emissions sooner, we wouldn’t have to spend so much on adaptation. And conversely, if we end up with a weak deal, or no deal at all, it will cost much, much more – we’ll all need adaptation funds.

(Sources: E&E News PM, ClimateWire, BBC, E&E TV, Huffington Post, Reuters PlanetArk)

Testifying to the EPA on its Big Polluters rule

(Stop CO2 stickers passed out by the Sierra Club at the EPA hearing)

Today there was an opportunity to testify at one of two EPA hearings nationwide about a proposed rule to regulate global warming emissions from the largest (25,000 tons/year) coal-fired plants and smokestack industries. Together these big plants emit more than half the greenhouse gases in the U.S. The EPA proposes to regulate them under the Clean Air Act, based on a Supreme Court decision, by requiring the "best available technology" for new plants or those making major changes or expansions.

I was among those who testified. Here is what I said:

"My name is Cynthia Linton. I am a teacher at Northwestern University and a grandmother. In 2050 I will be gone, but my grandchildren will be very much alive, and I worry they will have to deal with climate catastrophes because we haven’t taken action to cut greenhouse gases by 80% as scientists say we must.

I wholeheartedly support the Big Polluters rule and commend the EPA for doing what it was set up to do -- protect the environment. Some people forget what EPA stands for.

Large coal-fired electric plants and smokestack industries produce more than half the global warming pollution in the United States. So it makes great sense to focus on these sources of greenhouse gas emissions as a giant step toward solving the problem.

Britain recently banned new coal-powered plants that didn’t have technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. The law went into effect immediately. Not in 2013, not in 2017. But now.

We should use the Clean Air Act to begin cracking down on plants that are polluting the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases and prevent the building of new ones that worsen the problem. The rule calls for the best available technology for new plants and those making big changes. That could include using cleaner energy, becoming much more efficient, buying new equipment or, as a last resort, closing down outdated and filthy plants.

While a cap-and-trade bill languishes in the Senate and an international treaty is delayed, the EPA must take this significant step to ensure that the Earth and the people on it are safe in the future."


There was a tremendous turnout at the Rosemont Convention Center, where two long days of testimony had all slots filled days ahead of time. There were scientists, health advocates, professors, environmentalists and many other concerned citizens from throughout the Midwest. They included a professor who teaches a very popular global warming class at the U. of Chicago and has written several books, a scientist who does climate research in Antarctica and a young woman who said she was there because she is 22 and this is going to affect her future. Virtually all supported the rule.

Of course, the other national hearing was in Alexandria, Va., and likely attracted many lobbyists for big coal, big oil and industry.

Experts at a panel discussion hosted by the Sierra Club at the lunch break agreed the rule is a good first step and hopefully will be followed by regulation of existing plants. As one panelist said, "If there was no more coal, we'd find another way." They agreed that clean, renewable energy and efficiency were the way to go. They also agree Congress needs to pass a climate bill.

Cost of climate bill will be slight, CBO reports

(Photo of California wildfire from Flickr and photographer slworking2)

The cost of the House-passed climate bill would be mild, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday. The American Climate and Energy and Security Act (ACES) would reduce GDP by ¼ to ¾ of a percent by 2020 and 1 to 3.5% by 2050, the CBO said in a new report.

The impact on household purchasing power would be less than 1% in 2020 and 1.2% in 2050.

CBO said it did not consider the benefits of averting climate change.

And therein lies one problem with predicting the costs connected with any climate bill or plan. The costs of doing nothing are even higher. In some countries GDP could be cut by as much as 20% by 2030, according the UN-backed Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, which sees Florida losing as much as 10% of GDP.

The other problem in making predictions is that most groups figuring the costs have an ax to grind – they’re either for or against greenhouse gas restrictions and that colors the way they make their estimate.

Hard to figure
The Congressional Research Service (part of the Library of Congress), in a second report released Friday, said any estimate should be “viewed with attentive skepticism.” They examined predictions from such diverse sources as the EPA, MIT, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation, and National Association of Manufacturers. (The last three oppose the climate bill.)

An EPA study earlier this year said household costs would go up $54 a year, for example, while the Energy Information Administration said $83. An older CBO estimate was $175. The estimates are all over the map.

Efficiency a key
Energy-efficiency programs are important to reducing costs, several organizations have pointed out, so a lot depends on how much efficiency is part of the package. Energy savings could outweigh energy price increases.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Society and Center for American Progress estimated household savings could be $215 years with proper energy efficiency.

Cost of doing nothing
But the cost of climate change that continues unabated will be billions more than the cost of curbing it, a new Union of Concerned Scientists study says. Hurricane damage in Florida could be $33 billion by 2030, the report says.

It’s easy to point to the cost of doing something. But that’s not the whole story.

I used to have a poster in the '60s that said, “Not to decide is to decide.” Those who oppose climate legislation or cap-and-trade as too expensive – or want to put it off – are turning a blind eye to what happens if they fail to act.

We need to consider the costs of flooding, hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, rising seas and all the other weather calamities that will hurt agriculture, businesses and real estate. Remember New Orleans? And there’s also the cost of adaptation – the rush to throw up sea barriers and the like when the results of global warming become more evident. Experts are already recommending expensive adaptation measures like dams, barriers and improved drainage.

(Sources: Congressional Budget Office,ClimateWire, Reuters)

64 groups join to fight for climate change bill

(Photo of Capitol from Flickr and photographer Linedog1848)

Groups that realize we need a climate bill now are not going to lie down and let the anti forces roll over them. That’s sure good to hear, after the drubbing health care reform has been taking.

A coalition of 64 environmental groups, unions, sportsmen, religious organizations, veterans, businesses and others announced Tuesday formation of Clean Energy Works, a multi-million-dollar campaign to pass a climate bill in Washington.

Members include such varied organizations as the Sierra Club, Service Employees Union, NAACP, VoteVets and Catholics United. Some of the coalition members lobbied hard for the successful passage of the House bill in June. Others have joined to make a “bigger, bolder and stronger” force as the bill moves to the Senate, according to a Clean Energy Works spokesman.

The group plans to hold 50 events this week to coincide with the release of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy report on the economic benefits of passing a climate bill.

The coalition is not specifying what it wants to see in the Senate bill, or final bill that goes to the President, though individual members will continue to fight for issues important to them.

A staff of 35, provided by member groups, will steer the effort. Plans include grass-roots actions in 28 states and a massive advertising campaign. Ultimate targets of the campaign are about 20 swing votes in the Senate.

Opposition
Also targeting those Senators are climate bill opponents like the American Petroleum Institute, American Coalition for Clean Coal and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who have already launched a huge campaign of grass-roots events, media advertising and lobbying, warning about potential job-loss, high costs and government takeover.

There’s also a group – Climate SOS – working on the left to kill the bill and start over again, saying the House bill – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – doesn’t go far enough. That group plans non-violent civil disobedience, occupation of offices (including those of key proponents Barbara Boxer and John Kerry) and protests on Sept. 22. Groups in SOS include Progressive Democrats of America and the Energy Justice Network.

Perhaps the more militant group on the left (they’re right, you know, it doesn’t go far enough, but we don’t have time to put this off and it’s probably the best we can do) will help Clean Energy Works seem mainstream (it is) and perhaps get it more support.

I’m very relieved a large coalition is pushing for a bill. But we can’t make “them” do all the work. This affects “us” and when Clean Energy Works and its member organizations reach out to us we should do all we can, especially those living in swing states. Keep after your senators. We need this.

(Sources: E&E News PM, Business Week )

Fed climate bill to pre-empt states on cutting GHG

(Photo of power plant in New York City from Flickr and photographer Salim
Virji)

Some states are complaining they won’t be able to set stricter greenhouse gas curbs under a federal climate bill. The House bill passed in June calls for cutting GHG 17% (from 2005 levels) by 2020 and pre-empts states and regional coalitions from requiring stronger measures.

Five state attorneys-general (from California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and Arizona) have written Senate leaders asking them to include in their version of the climate bill a 20% cut by 2020 and permission for states to impose stricter limits if they choose.

At risk is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, made up of 10 Eastern states, which has already raised $350 million for clean energy and efficiency from auctioning permits in its new cap-and-trade market. RGGI is on its way to cutting emissions from power plants 10% by 2018.

Also in danger is the Western Climate Initiative, a plan for 11 states and Canadian provinces to begin cap-and-trade in 2012. A number of other states are “observers.” They don’t want to make a commitment but are watching to see what happens.

Under the House American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), these programs would have to stop in 2012, which means the Western plan would never get off the ground.

The best solution here would be a stronger Senate bill that caps emissions at 20% (at least) but also allows states to do more if they want, just as California has led the way on auto emissions. The East and West Coasts are far more likely than much of the rest of the country to have the political will to do what needs to be done to stop global warming and they shouldn’t be restrained.

But just to put it all in perspective, industrialized nations altogether have plans to cut GHG an average of 10-14% from 1990 levels (which is lower than 2005), according to Reuters, while the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the world needs to cut 20-40% and China and India want the U.S. and other industrialized countries to cut 40% by 2020 to allow for economic growth in developing countries.

(Source: Reuters PlanetArk, riggi.org, westernclimateinitiative.org)

Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Follow the $$ that influenced climate change bill

(Picture of money from Flickr and photographer Tracy O.)

There are 2 ways for industry to gain access to congressman considering global warming (or any other) legislation. Both involve money. There are paid lobbyists and contributions to campaign funds.

And Big Energy was busy trying both ways in the House this spring as the American Clean and Energy Security Act (ACES) was heatedly debated and narrowly passed with some concessions to electric utilities and coal.

As Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen told Greenwire, “The more you spend the better chance you’ve got at influencing legislation.”

Lobbyists
In the second quarter alone (April-June, when the bill was debated in committee), the 10 industries with the biggest stake in the results spent $122 million. Oil and gas spent the most, at $37.7 million. Chevron alone spent $6 million. Environmental groups spent just $5.2M.

In the whole first half of 2009, oil and gas spent $82.2M and electric utilities spent $35.9 million on lobbyists, while Exxon Mobil by itself spent $15M, slightly more than all clean energy combined.

Campaign contributions
In the same quarter, coal-fired electric utilities, with potentially the most to lose, were busy contributing to Congressmen’s campaign funds. Especially those on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which was debating the climate change bill.

Employee PACS at American Electric Power, Southern Co. and Duke Energy together donated $165,000 to 70 house members, many on the Energy Committee. The largest donation, $11,500, went to Minority Leader John Boener (R-Ohio).

Those who received these contributions voted 2-1 against the bill. This despite the fact that the three companies ended up supported it – and why not? They got a pretty good deal, with 35% of the free credits allocated to electric utilities. Plus the EPA lost some of is power to regulate coal-fired utility plants under the Clean Air Act. And research money for carbon capture and sequestration was included.

Eight Republicans ended up voting for the bill. Of those, 7 got little or no money from the utilities. An industry rep explained to E&E Daily they only contribute to those with whom they see eye-to-eye on issues. The wavering Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who ended up voting for the bill, was wooed with contributions by both sides.

More money for Democrats
Because they now have the majority (and some hail from oil patch and coal states), Democrats in the House and Senate got a bigger share of energy money than before. In the first half of the 2009 utilities gave 59% of their cash to Democrats, and the nuclear industry gave 65% of theirs.

But oil and gas, and coal, continued to favor the GOP. Oil and gas gave less than 25% to Dems, among them Sens. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), while the National Mining Assn. gave 40%. Exxon Mobil gave just 17% to Democrats.

Both sides (corporations and lawmakers), of course, deny this money buys votes. Industry sources say they tend to give money to those who see issues as they do. They said they donate when lawmakers hold fundraisers, not when a key bill is being considered.

Senators must not have been holding as many fund-raisers this spring, because they got considerably less from the electric utilities than House members.

As action on the climate bill moves to the Senate, look for a rise in “fund raising” there this fall.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Duke vs. Newt: frantic lobbying as House climate bill vote draws near

Duke Energy wants it, Newt Gingrich doesn't. With the House climate bill heading to the floor for debate Friday, lobbying is fast and furious.
In the past two days:
• A group of 22 environmental groups sent a letter to all House members urging them to vote for the bill – the American Energy and Climate Security Act (H.R.2454). Groups included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. LCV said it would not endorse anyone who votes against it.
• 20 companies and electric utilities took out full-page ads in Washington papers calling for passage because they want the clarity of rules it would bring (and likely because most allowances for cap-and-trade will be given -- not sold -- to polluters at the start). Those signing on included Duke, NRG Energy and PSEG Inc.
• 20 climate scientists sent a letter to Congress saying that to avert a "rapidly developing global climate crisis” they should pass a strengthened version of the bill as a basis for stronger federal policies. Well-known NASA scientist James Hansen, who is convinced CO2 emissions must be cut back to 350 parts per million (from the current 385) rather than the early target of 450 ppm, did not sign.
• President Obama urged passage during his news conference Tuesday, saying it would spark a clean-energy transformation.
• The Cooler Heads Coalition, a new group of science skeptics and other legislative opponents began lobbying Congressmen.
• Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for a Winning Future planned to run a TV ad, starting Wednesday, opposing the bill and saying it would hurt the economy.

Are the votes there to pass it?
On Tuesday there were 170 reliable votes and 108 on the fence, according to an analysis by E&E Daily. 218 votes are need to pass the bill. If the votes aren’t there, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he may push it back until after the Fourth of July.

In years past the Senate took the lead on climate legislation, and the House has never passed a cap-and-trade bill. But this year the Senate is lagging behind, with a weak energy bill out of the Energy Committee and Barbara Boxer still crafting a cap-and-trade bill in her Environment Committee. So even if the House manages to pass this bill, Senate agreement is not by any means secure.

A few other points
* The EPA said Tuesday the bill would cost the average household between $80 and $111 a year. Congressional Budget Office figures released Friday said an average of $175 a year, with a range of $40 to $245 depending on income level.

* The bill has been changed somewhat in recent days to accommodate the eight committees with some jurisdiction. A concern of Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has apparently been met by giving rural electric cooperatives one-half a percent of the free allowances. But agriculture is still concerned about who will oversee farm offsets, the Agriculture Department or the EPA. And moderate Democratic representatives from farm states are needed on this vote.

* States would now be permitted to spend 10% of their allotment (which in turn is 10% of free allowances) on public transportation.

* Because of the powerful farm interests, methane emissions from cows have been exempted from the bill. They called it a “cow tax.” Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cows produce about 25% of the emissions so that’s a significant exemption.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Waxman-Markey climate bill may be foiled next week by Dem agriculture chair's voting bloc

(I’m back, after a 7-month hiatus during my husband’s illness and death. I’m back earlier than I planned because next week could be critical for the fight against climate change.)

Rural agriculture interests threaten to kill hopes of passing a comprehensive global warming bill in the House next week – and maybe even this year. The Democratic chair of the Ag Committee, Collin Peterson (Minn.), is jawboning with bill sponsor Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who hopes to resolve differences to win over a necessary block of votes.

In case you missed it, with the media focused on health care, Congress is working on a cap-and-trade climate bill that could go to the House floor as early as Monday – if they have the votes to pass it.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES (H.R.2454), spearheaded by House Energy Chair Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), passed out of committee May 21. (Note that Waxman is now chairman of the committee Rep. John Dingell (D-Autos) used to lead, or this wouldn’t be happening.)

What’s in the bill
ACES sets a goal to reduce greenhouse gases 80% by 2050, a percentage scientists agreed is needed to avoid massive climate change and calamity. The problem, of course, is these reductions are based on 2005 greenhouse gas levels, not 1990 as the Kyoto agreement was, and during that time we accumulated a nice little built-in increase of CO2 in the atmosphere we won’t get rid of for 100 years. We’ve lost more than a decade since it became really clear we need to make huge reductions to avoid the powerful storms, water shortages, coastal inundation and other catastrophes higher temperatures are bringing.

H.R. 2454 key provisions:
* Set up a cap-and-trade system, with an increasingly lower cap on emissions and allowances to be traded as needed to meet those goals.
* Reduce carbon emissions from major sources 17% by 2020.
* Auction 15% of allowances at the start. The rest will be given away to electrical utilities and other industries impacted by the bill.
* Require that electric utilities meet 20% of their demand with renewable sources and efficiency by 2020.
*Invest in renewable sources, energy efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration, and electric and other advanced vehicles.
* Improve energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
* Fund efforts to reduce international deforestation.

Uncertainty about next week
Waxman and Markey and the Democratic leadership won’t go to the floor for debate unless it looks like they have the 218 votes needed to pass. After many voting blocks, such as coal, were wooed by giving them free allowances to start, the main holdup now is Agriculture Chair Peterson, who controls a 45-member bloc of votes. His main concern is that the formula for free allowances for electric utilities works against small rural cooperatives because it depends in part on sales. Others want to keep the carefully crafted formula as it is – half based on previous emissions and half on sales.

Green groups still pushing
Environmental organizations are still trying to strengthen the bill. They say 100% of allowances should be auctioned from the start. That’s what President Obama’s budget called for, but it seems giving away freebees is the only way, politically, to get this off the ground. Enviros want more emphasis on clean energy and efficiency, and a bigger emissions cut in the short term. As they lobby to strengthen the bill, they are far outspent by industry lobbyists. A study a few weeks ago showed a ratio of 16:1. That’s why your voice is needed.

What you can do
If you haven’t contacted your representative, now is the time to do it – this weekend. The bill could be filed as early as Monday, with debate Thursday and Friday, and a possible vote late Friday before the House breaks for the Fourth of July. Waxman wants a vote then because after the Fourth full attention will be on health care.

If we don’t get a climate bill by the end of the year, it may be another year or two (at least) before we do. And we’ll go empty-handed to the international meeting in Copenhagen in December, which gives us very little bargaining power with China and the rest of the world in coming up with a global treaty to replace Kyoto.

Call the Congressional switchboard at (212)224-3121 and ask for your rep by name. Tell his/her aide that you want this climate bill (H.R.2454) passed next week.
(Sources: American Clean Energy and Security Act, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Sierra Club.)