Enviro groups praise Kerry-Lieberman-Graham; but energy standard may include non-renewables

(Photo of nuclear plant from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicki Tracey)


Twenty environmental groups praised the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Senate climate bill Friday, despite the fact that it is business-friendly.

Meanwhile issues like a renewable energy standard, offshore-drilling revenue sharing, free permits for power plants, and pre-emption of EPA and states’ programs are still being discussed and resolved by the bill’s three authors.

Saying they are “encouraged by the progress” of the bill, which curbs emissions by 17% in 2020 and 80% in 2050, were the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Blue Green Alliance, Center for American Progress Action fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Tribal Environmental Council, Environment Northeast, National Audubon Society, Interfaith Power and Light, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, Wilderness Society, Climate Solutions and Environmental Law and Policy Center.

In an effort to avoid industry’s heavy lobbying against the bill and draw bi-partisan support, the authors made major concessions on domestic oil and gas drilling, help for nuclear power, and support for “clean coal.” It has been positioned as a jobs and anti-pollution bill that reduces dependence on foreign oil.

Unresolved issues
With plans to show the bill to other Senators as early as tomorrow, the trio has been working to finalize several matters.

One involves state revenue sharing of offshore oil royalties. To give an incentive for state approval, which is needed to drill off their coastlines – even in federal waters – there is a proposal to give states 25% of what the federal government stands to gain. Another 10% would go in a Land and Water Conservation Fund. It remains to be seen if the west coast of Florida, the only area off-limits to offshore drilling, will have a change of status.

Another issue still unresolved is whether a renewable energy standard will be morphed into a “clean energy” standard, to include one or more of the following: nuclear power, which is greenhouse-gas-free but not renewable (big problem); natural gas (which has about half the emissions of coal); and coal plants that use carbon capture and storage. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) has floated a plan with a higher standard than last year’s Energy Committee bill (20% in 2020, rather than 15%), but it is a clean – not renewable – energy standard. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) clearly favors adding nuclear.

It also appears that power plants, the first to be affected by the bill, would get free pollution permits to start, in what now may be back to a cap-and-trade, or at least cap-and-dividend, system. And they would be able to use offsets, to protect forests and land here and abroad, to meet their quota. Power plants emit about 40% of all GHG.

Finally, the bill has a controversial section that takes aim at the EPA and states, pre-empting EPA regulation of GHG emissions and of hydraulic fracturing used to get natural gas out of shale. It will also override states’ and regions’ cap-and-trade plans. Some from states that are out front on climate change object, saying every level of government needs to be involved in the fight against climate change.

For those wanting to read more on the work-in-progress, a post on Grist and Wonk Room compares the current draft with Obama’s proposal and the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last summer.

Also, scroll down to see Earthling Angst posts over the past couple of weeks as this bill was fine-tuned after meetings with all sides.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, grist.org)

Provocative NASA study puts road traffic ahead of power plants as cause of climate change near-term

(Picture of auto traffic from Flickr and photographer Lynac)

A new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says tailpipe emissions will cause the most global warming over the next decade. Next comes heating homes by burning wood and cow dung in poor countries. Third is methane from cows.

Electric power is further down the list, though it will be the prime source of warming by century’s end, the study predicts. The provocative study, by a team led by NASA’s Nadine Unger, was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Policy implications
Does this mean we should turn away from fighting the coal industry and focus more on electric cars, high-speed rail and aid to third-world countries? Possibly. We may have a little more time than we thought to shut off coal – as far as global warming is concerned.

But this is just one study. It will need to be confirmed by others.

And the reason behind the findings is troubling. It all has to do with the release of aerosols that block the incoming sunlight and have a temporary cooling effect. Tailpipe emissions don’t have much of those, while coal-fired plants do. Some aerosols, such as sulfates and organic carbon, have a very short-term cooling effect (they are rained down in just a few days), while greenhouse gases stay aloft for decades.

Of course this is a double-edged sword. Aerosols have a known harmful effect on human health and on the environment. That’s why industrialized countries have been phasing them out.

A choice we don’t want to make
Do we have to choose between climate change and our health? Unger says, “no,” that we need to phase out unhealthy aerosols, but that an immediate focus on transportation will give us the biggest bang for our buck in the next decade.

A sound way to proceed is by attacking all sources – tailpipes, burning of wood and dung, cattle-produced methane AND power plants. If we can remove many of the sources of greenhouse gases, we won’t need unhealthy particles in the air to block out the sun.

To read about the study and see graphs go to NASA’s Web site.

See Q&A with Unger. (Caution: Don’t be biased by her picture. She’s a pretty blonde.)

If you want to read the study abstract.

(Sources: NASA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fastcompany.com)

What did Hillary's $100B offer at COP15 mean?

(Photo of Clinton with U.S. negotiator Todd Stern at COP15 from Flickr and photographer Andy Revkin)

When I woke up this morning to the news that Hillary Clinton had announced in Copenhagen that the U.S. would raise $100 billion a year for poor countries to fight and adapt to climate change, I was amazed that Barack Obama hadn’t saved such big news for his speech tomorrow.

Here’s what she said, when she arrived last night, or was it this morning? The half-day time difference really throws me.

“The United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address climate change needs of developing countries.”

A lot of qualifying terms there: work with others, toward a goal, jointly mobilizing…. It wasn’t exactly a declaration that the U.S. government, perhaps with bonus money thrown in by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street fat cats (and maybe some help from Mr. Bill’s Foundation connections) would put up all the money.

As I began to parse the language and read more reports, some things became clearer – i.e. that she was sent to offer a carrot to African and other very poor nations to use a stick on China and India to allow their emission cuts to be monitored.

She noted such a fund was only for the poorest countries (i.e. not China) and it depended on a climate agreement including verifiable commitments to cut emissions or carbon intensity (i.e. China).

Other things became less clear – i.e. how much of the $100B will come from the U.S.? How much public and how much private? Will the billions already pledged by Japan, the EU and others for the next three years be part of that fund? Are we simply echoing a pledge by Europe to help set up a worldwide $100 billion fund for the long term?

According to U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the pending climate bill here contains $5B a year in proceeds from auctioning cap-and-trade allowances that would go to developing countries. Others are suggesting some of the money could come from $60B in annual subsidies for fossil fuels.

Whatever the case, response by other countries and environmentalists is positive and seen as perhaps the “breakthrough” the climate talks needed to avoid a failed conference. It suggests a long-term commitment by the U.S.
This may be the only way Obama can “lead,” given the stinginess of the Congress in committing to cut emissions.

Although poor countries say they need much, much more than $100 billion as droughts ravage some countries and rising seas threaten to obliterate others, their point person at the conference, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, acknowledged they would accept $30B in the short term, $50B by 2015 and $100B by 2020.

Some of this money would help avoid deforestation, which causes about 20% of the world’s greenhouse gases. (Did you know the world is losing an acre of forest every second? I read that in Al Gore’s new book, “Our Choice.”)

An agreement to pay countries to avoid clearing their forests for agriculture has been one of the more likely outcomes of this conference.

World leaders are starting to arrive. We’ll see what the coming day brings (it’s already getting to be evening Thursday in Copenhagen).

(Sources: Sierra Club, Greenwire, Washington Post, LA Times, climateprogress.org)