Climate bill dead in the water; Next up, attack on EPA rules

(Photo of U.S. Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg)

You can kiss a climate bill goodbye, for 2010 and likely for the foreseeable future.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has read the tea leaves and seen the time and the votes aren’t there. So instead he is offering a pitiful oil spill response and energy efficiency bill. He thinks he can get 60 votes for that, but others aren’t even sure.

Gone is a price on carbon. Gone is a renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15%, which was scorned by enviros as far too weak when it passed out of Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) energy committee a year ago. Now it looks pretty good.

Without a price on carbon and an RES, clean energy won’t have the impetus needed to make a dent in the fossil fuel monopoly.

Reid’s bill, to be unveiled Monday, is expected to include:
• A spill response eliminating or raising the $75M liability cap, probably to $10B, plus some rig safety rules.
• HomeStar energy-efficiency retrofitting.
• Natural gas truck incentives.
• Funds for land and water conservation.

Now it’s up to the EPA
The only silver lining in this disastrous thunder cloud is that the EPA can begin regulating large sources of emissions, and states can continue their own programs.

But a new study by the World Resource Institute says those would only cut greenhouse gases 14% by 2020, instead of the 17% expected in the Kerry-Lieberman bill and promised by Obama at the world meeting in Copenhagen.

Republicans, and some Democratic Senators, are hoping to handcuff the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. If they succeed, emissions would be cut just 6-9%, the study says. And there’s no way – without additional measures – to come close to the 80% reduction needed by 2050.

Dem Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) has a bill, which Reid promised to bring up for a vote, which would delay EPA action for two years. (It’s not like we’re in any hurry here.) Six other Dems are co-sponsoring that bill. In case any of them are supposed to represent you, they are Dorgan and Conrad of N.D., McCaskill (Mo.) Webb (Va.), Johnson (S.C.) and Nelson (Neb.)

A companion bill in the House is likely to be blocked by Dem leadership. And there’s always an Obama veto. So in all likelihood the EPA will be able to proceed in January, requiring new plants to use the best available technology to cut GHG.

There’s a GOP energy bill too
Just in case you thought Reid’s bill is as low as we could go, Republicans will offer an energy bill of their own that focuses (of course) on offshore drilling, lifting the deepwater drilling moratorium for those that meet new inspection criteria, making 37.5% revenue sharing with states immediate rather than waiting till 2017, setting up a more industry-friendly liability program, and reorganizing the former Minerals Management Service.

Nothing here about energy efficiency or natural gas vehicles.

Who wins, who loses?
So, despite the catastrophic Gulf spill and the sweltering heat, which should remind us of what’s in store, Big Oil and Coal have handily won this round.

There are a lot of losers:

Too bad, House of Representatives, which passed a decent bill last summer, that will now die.

Too bad, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman, who spent much of the past year-and-a-half trying to gain support for a mild but comprehensive climate bill.

Too bad, corporations, that want some certainty about regulations in the future.

Too bad, environmental groups, for all the resources spent pleading our case.

Too bad, clean energy businesses that won’t get a level playing field.

And too bad, world, that is waiting for the United States to lead, or at least not to drag everyone else down.

Too bad, you and me and our children and grandchildren.

It’s really, really too bad.

(Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, The Hill)

BP, other Big Oil said they had technology to stop blowouts

(Image of "top hat" attempt to stem oil flow from Flickr and Mick Licht, NotionsCapital.com.)

BP and other drilling companies in the Gulf assured the Minerals Management Service – in writing – that they had the “proven equipment and technology” to handle deepwater oil spills like the one we’re seeing now.

They didn’t describe what that technology was and MMS didn’t ask. Top hat? Junk shot?

Most of the 36 deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf got approval by giving the same assurances, according to a Greenwire analysis of MMS records. Nearly all plans said they could handle a “worst case scenario” which BP defined as 162,000 barrels a day, far more than the estimated 12,000 to 25,000 a day of this spill.

Seven plans had identical wording: "In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses."

Many of the companies said because of their “response capabilities” even a major spill would cause no major damage.

Now we know otherwise.

Last week President Obama suspended 33 deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf.

Some members of the Senate Environment Committee have asked for a criminal investigation of BP’s alleged “false statements,” which might also lead to looking at other drilling companies making similar assurances, including Exxon and Marathon Oil.

(Source: Greenwire)

New bipartisan Senate 'framework' for climate bill favors oil, coal, nuke industries

(Sen. Lindsey Graham gives John McCain's mother a punch in the cheek (not really) on Election Night 2008. Photo from Flickr and photographer Dr. Akomodi

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released a framework last week for a Senate climate bill that supposedly could get bipartisan support. Kerry was chief sponsor (with Barbara Boxer) on the original, stronger Senate bill, which presumably can’t get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

Lieberman has been working several years, first with John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then with now retired John Warner (R-Va.) to pass some kind of climate bill in the Senate, so it’s not too surprising he offered to help massage Kerry’s bill.

Graham? He’s great buddies with Lieberman and McCain (the three amigos were a frequent photo op during McCain’s presidential campaign), so I have to wonder if he’s a stand-in here for McCain, who’s publicly gone more conservative with a Senate election coming up.

Anyway, the framework was released last week in an effort to show that, yes, there’s a chance to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S. 17% by 2020, despite the foot-dragging in the Senate. That is what the House passed and Obama has more or less promised to the rest of the world. Do you know how piddling 17% based on 2005 levels is? Most industrialized countries that made pledges based them on 1990 figures and are up in the 20-30% range.

The four-page framework doesn’t have a lot of other details but it does outline priorities: jobs and lowering dependence on foreign oil.

There are whole sections, though, on nuclear, domestic oil and coal. A little of that would be expected, if they’re trying to get bipartisan support. But let’s not let those industries write the bill!

A comment Graham made to E&E News last week is particularly alarming:

"I need the nuclear power industry to say that this bill gets us to where we want to go," Graham said. "I need the coal companies to say that clean coal provisions will not only not put us out of business, but actually increase the value of coal in America. And I'm going to need the oil and gas industry to say that the oil and gas drilling provisions are meaningful, will add to our inventory and make us more energy independent, and it's good business."

He actually said that.

Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute. Are we doing this to ensure the continuation of fossil fuels and the resurrection of a defunct nuclear industry? Or are we doing it to clean up the environment and make the planet safe for humans?

We need to watch very carefully as this bill is developed. There are some nice thoughts in it: Like long-term 80% reduction in GHG (they don’t commit to any year though, and it may be hard to get from here to there by 2050, which is when we should be at 80%).

They do note that putting a price on carbon will push development of low-carbon energy, but incentives for nuclear and “clean” coal get more attention.

There are actually sections entitled “Ensuring a Future for Coal” and “Encouraging Nuclear.” Um, excuse me, what about wind and solar? And geothermal and biomass? And efficiency….

Clearly this is written to appeal to the coal states (of which there are many) and the oil states, but will they lose the environmentalists -- and any sane person who realizes what fossil fuels are doing to this planet? A big part of the motivation is they want Congressional action instead of EPA regulation or a patchwork of restrictions in individual states. They actually say all that.

There is too much mention of “outside stakeholders.” Guess who that is? Not us.

The rest of the world is not happy with our puny 17% pledge at Copenhagen and I can’t see that they’re going to like the rest of what’s in the Senate “framework.” Let’s hope they put huge pressure on the U.S. to get real on climate and not just shill for existing industries as this framework seems to do.

It’s embarrassing the U.S. is so far behind Europe and being chided by China and other developing countries for not doing enough. Are we really going to let the “outside stakeholders” in the U.S. determine the future of the planet?
(Source: E&E News PM)

Financial meltdown slams corn ethanol and threatens mass transit, but Big Oil still riding high

(Photo of ethanol plant from Flickr and and photographer freddthompson, actor, senator and presidential candidate)

Weekly Angst: Because of the financial meltdown, ethanol companies are struggling and some are going under. Caught between corn contracts signed last summer when prices were sky-high and lower fuel prices, and with credit hard to come by, businesses are seeing the ethanol bubble of the past year burst. Investors have lost billions. VeraSun Energy, for example, expects to lose up to $103 million this quarter. Its stock is down 90% from its peak earlier this year. And ethanol companies in Kansas and Ohio declared bankruptcy last week. The Agriculture Department is considering loan guarantees to keep ethanol businesses afloat.

Mass transit hits trouble
Mass Transit agencies are also caught in the crunch. They face having to pay banks billions as old financing deals fall apart. The problem was triggered by the failure of insurance giant AIG, which guaranteed deals between the agencies and banks. Because of long-standing agreements to give banks tax shelters by selling them rail cars and then leasing them back, some 30 mass transit agencies around the country are now in danger of having to pay back their loans all at once. Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is the first to be hit. KBC Group of Belgium wants $43 million by next week. The feds may have to get in the middle of this one too – to keep the trains running.

Other repercussions include cancellation of a coal-to-liquid joint venture between Consolidated Energy and Synthetic Energy Systems and the delay of a SunCor Energy oil sands project in Canada. (No tears shed over those).

Major oil companies in good shape
So how is the meltdown affecting Big Oil? With prices dropping rapidly you might think they’re feeling the pain. But apparently not. With record profits last year, they have reduced their debt and are cash fat. So now they can buy up distressed smaller rivals and make deals with resource-heavy countries. Production may be down, but refining should be profitable this year. And they expect less pressure to pass windfall profits taxes. So lower prices and lower demand don’t really bother them. (No one ever said life is fair.)

On the bright side
The economic downturn could benefit green technology, though. It could give government a historic opportunity to climate-proof its infrastructure as part of a public works effort to generate jobs. This may translate into an investment opportunity, says a recent report from Deutsche Bank. The International Energy Agency has called for a $45 trillion investment in climate related technology by 2050. And Deutsche Bank says renewable energy investments have more promise in the long term than tradition energy sources.

At the same time, venture capital continues to flow into Silicon Valley and California in general. VC investments in energy and utilities were up in the 3rd quarter 90% over the same period last year, as investors pulled back from other sectors like information technology, media and financial services. Clean tech reported a record $1.08 billion in investments, most of it going to solar. In the Bay Area, which includes Silicon Valley, overall VC was up 22%, the highest single-quarter total since 2001. One benefit of green technology is most of it is tied to government policy so it’s not as vulnerable to swings in the market.
Observers are waiting to see the results of this quarter, however, anticipating that falling oil and carbon prices could have an impact. VC fell in the third quarter in other parts of the country.

And Neal Dikeman, of Jane Capital Partners, warned that a prolonged financial crisis could have an adverse effect on a 2012 post-Kyoto international agreement to fight global warming, by either delaying or weakening it.

For additional comments on the financial crisis’ impact on climate change see my earlier post.

(Sources: Greenwire, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal)

Big Oil wins this round; offshore ban is gone

(Photo of offshore oil platform from Flickr and photographer absolutwade/Beau Wade)

Washington Report: Big Oil has won, at least for now. After spending millions on lobbying, and taking advantage of the rise in gas prices to win over two powerful advocates, President Bush and John McCain, it has two-thirds of the country believing we need to drill offshore – and drill now. Not to mention those omnipresent American Petroleum Institute ads of an annoying woman of indeterminate age in a black pantsuit who strides across the U.S. map as if she owns it, telling us Congress has put most of the oil reserves in the U.S. off bounds. Well, they aren’t anymore. For the first time in 26 years, Congress has let the moratorium on offshore drilling expire. Starting Oct. 1 oil rigs technically could spring up just 3 miles offshore, except within 150 miles of Florida’s Gulf Coast, which was placed off-limits by a 2006 law. Also gone is the ban on oil shale in the West. It’s a huge step backward for the environment and a win for fossil fuels. Not satisfied, some lawmakers continue to push their drilling agendas. Republicans want to give the states a portion of the royalties (which some gulf states had and lost) and speed up leasing and permitting. Democrats from Massachusetts want to make sure to protect the Georges Bank fishing grounds (“shellfish, not Shell Oil”) and national marine sanctuaries from drilling. A new president and Congress could reinstate the ban. (E&E News PM)

Sarah Palin's views on Big Oil and the environment are a threat to all earthlings

(Couldn't resist this cartoon-photo on Flickr from earthpro/harold)

Weekly Angst: EarthlingAngst is back early from vacation because her angst level has gone way up over the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the GOP vice presidential candidate. Just when we were beginning to think things would have to get better for global warming with the next administration – whoever won – comes a candidate whose views on the environment are worse than George Bush’s.

Sarah Palin:
• Is skeptical that global warming is the result of human activities.
• Questions the science behind predictions of Arctic ice melt.
• Fought designation of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and now has filed suit against the Interior Department to de-list it.
• Favors drilling in ANWR and has tried to persuade Sen. McCain to take the same position, inviting him to visit the area.
• Favors off-shore drilling.
• Opposed a state initiative to stop metal mining pollution of streams where salmon spawn – the measure failed last week.
• Approves of shooting wolves and bears from airplanes.
• Opposes a federal windfall profit tax on oil, though she taxes them at the state level.

Alaska loves oil
Palin “embodies a distinctly Alaskan perspective” on oil and gas, which provides 85-90% of the state’s budget, according The Daily Green, a Hearst Web site.

Environmental groups were quick to pan the choice of Palin as McCain’s running mate. She’s a candidate who repeats Big Oil’s talking points, said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

She would continue the destructive Bush policies and is to the right of Bush on the polar bear, said the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

With her support for drilling, she would continue the failed policies of Bush-Cheney and their Big Oil friends, League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said.

EarthlingAngst shudders at the thought that she could be a heartbeat away from a president in his 70s, or even have a strong influence on him. And her main support base is the extreme right social conservatives. (Her other views, in case you missed them, include overturning Roe v. Wade and teaching creationism in school alongside evolution.)

Biden’s environmental record
Is Democrat V.P. candidate Joe Biden better? Yes.

He has a lifetime environmental score of 83% with the League of Conservation Voters. According to LCV, he has been a leader on global warming issues, chairing Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the national security implications of climate change and co-authoring a resolution telling President Bush to negotiate seriously on the international level for a post-Kyoto agreement. He has sponsored bills to decrease reliance on foreign oil and to increase fuel economy in cars. He’s against drilling in ANWR and voted to reduce oil usage 40% by 2025.

(Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, thedailygreen.com, League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Sierra Club.)

House OKs renewable energy tax credits

(Photo of windfarm from Flickr and photographer Alessandro Ronchi)

Congressional Round-up: The House voted 236-182 Wednesday to approve renewable energy tax credit extensions, funding them by eliminating tax breaks for 5 big oil companies. This is the fourth time they approved such a bill in the past year. Now comes the hard part. A similar bill has failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. That is likely again, though one tactic under discussion is to try to get some of the package included in the final budget reconciliation bill. The extensions are needed because current ones expire at the end of 2008, and already investment in renewables is slowing down. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned that a failure to extend the credits could cost the country 116,000 jobs. The Senate could bring up the bill as soon as next week. The House bill (H.R. 5351) provides:
• A 3-year extension on investment credits for wind, geothermal and other renewables.
• An 8-year extension of incentives for commercial solar energy and 6 years for residential, doubling the top credit for homeowners to $4,000.
• Incentives for plug-in hybrids, energy efficiency and installation of pumps for fuel with 85% ethanol.
The GOP and White House object to rescinding $13.6 billion in tax cuts for integrated oil companies. They say it will thwart exploration and raise prices for consumers. Dems said with oil over $100 a barrel, the 5 companies affected are making record profits and will lose less than 2% of those profits in the next 10 years. Call your Senators to approve this bill at (202)224-3121. Also, check to see how your Rep voted. (Sources: Washington Post, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Sierra Club)

McCain nets zero on environment from Conservation Voters
Many see Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee for president, as pro-environment. The League of Conservation Voters disagrees. McCain scored the lowest possible grade, a zero, on LCV’s 2007 Scorecard. Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) came in at 73, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at 67. McCain, who introduced global warming legislation back before it was popular, has twice failed to show up for a vote on renewable tax credit extensions, where his vote could have made the difference. LCV says it’s a pattern and he missed all critical environmental votes last year. His lifetime score is 24. To see how your elected representatives scored, check the LCV scorecard. (Sources: Sierra Club, LCV)