GOP plans defense to Dem effort to link spill to climate

Senate Republicans are plotting their defense strategy as Dems try to agree on how to pursue climate and energy legislation, in advance of a bi-partisan meeting with President Obama Tuesday.

The White House meet was postponed from last week because of the Gen. McChrystal flap.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week pulled together Republicans invited to that meeting to make sure they hold together under pressure to sign on to a climate bill. He told them to focus on the Gulf oil spill, and not tie it to climate change, as Dems want. And he warned any bill with an “energy tax” (cap-and-trade) would go nowhere.

Meanwhile Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) held two caucus meetings, the second of which was praised as “inspirational” by attendees, yet was unable to find common ground on how strong and comprehensive an energy bill should be.

Polluters should pay
Dems agreed to emphasize “polluters pay” in their bill and Reid said there should also be millions of new jobs, a cut in pollution and energy independence. But they didn’t get much further than that.

Alternatives range from the comprehensive Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act based on cap-and-trade, to a weaker version that just regulates utility companies, to an energy-only bill without any price on carbon, to a very weak bill energy bill from Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The problem is getting all Dems onboard and picking up at least one Republican. Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) is seen as a possible vote for linking clean energy to the spill.

But it may be difficult to get the support of all Dems. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he wants to focus on suspending the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and pushing for clean coal – not exactly what most other Dems have in mind.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has suggested that a diverse panel of about 10 Democrats try to hammer out compromise legislation they think can get 60 votes.

But there’s not much time to act. Just one week between now and the Fourth of July and then 25 days until the August recess. After that elections will dominate.

And it won’t necessarily be easy to reach agreement on the other part of the bill – reforming offshore drilling regulations. Lifting the liability cap is already controversial.

(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Obama and Dem leaders will push next week to firm up a climate strategy; but will a price on carbon be part of it?

Will there be a price on carbon? That seems to be the most important question, but it's certainly not the only one about upcoming climate legislation in the Senate.

As Obama invites a bi-partisan group of Senators to share ideas at the White House next week, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reconvenes the Democratic caucus to discuss proposals presented in a one-hour closed-door meeting last week, cap and trade (or some other price on carbon) seems the most controversial piece of the puzzle.

How to get to 60
Republicans voted in lockstep for the Murkowski resolution to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (and were joined by 6 Democrats).

So it seems likely they will hold together to vote “no” on cap and trade, or any legislation that’s tough on fossil fuels. With elections close at hand they may just say “no” to block Obama.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked for months with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has deserted his friends in the enemy camp and is now backing fellow Republican Richard Lugar’s (Ind.) bill. So that might have a chance to get to the 60 votes needed. But it’s very weak, focusing on energy efficiency, nuclear power and retiring a few of the oldest, dirtiest coal-powered plants.

Another possibility for Republican support is the Cantwell-Collins “cap and dividend bill.” GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Me.) is one of the sponsors and might bring along a couple of fellow New Englanders. It would return 75% of revenues from allowances to the people. But anything with “cap” seems to be politically toxic.

And we certainly can’t depend on oil-patch Democrats, who we’ve seen are still clamoring for increased offshore drilling. In fact, without immediate state revenue-sharing of offshore drilling, Mary Landieu (D-La.) says she’ll work to stop a bill. And then there are coal-state Dems like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). He's unlikely to vote for anything that hurts his state’s economy.

The benefits of Kerry-Lieberman
Although it’s not all we might wish, Kerry-Lieberman’s American Power Act, which is built on cap-and-trade (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), seems by far the best Senate bill out there. It would actually DO something and aims for an 83% cut in GHG by 2050. An EPA analysis puts the cost per family at less than a postage stamp a day. A Peterson Institute study says it will unleash 200,000 new jobs a year 2011-2020. And a ClimateWorks Foundation study ups the jobs to half a million a year until 2030.

Rationally, this is the best bill hands down. And it has the support of many big businesses, like GE, Honeywell and Dow Chemical. But who’s rational? Certainly not the Senate a few months before midterm elections.

So conventional wisdom is that Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) bill that passed the Energy Committee last year and would establish a renewable electricity standard, will be the platform to which other items would be attached. Kerry-Lieberman could be introduced as an amendment (though they are still fighting to take the lead) -- and will probably fail to get 60 votes.

Possible health reform redux
Meanwhile the idea is out there that the strategy might be to pass the best bill possible, then go to reconciliation with the House, which you may have forgotten passed a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill last year. And they could work cap-and-trade into the final result. The votes might be there for passage of such a final bill in the lame-duck session. Especially if majority rules.

That would be cool. But we’ll have to see how it plays out.

Getting anything through the Senate will be hard because this bill will also contain response to the oil spill, like greatly increasing the oil tax for the Spill Response Trust Fund, eliminating the liability cap of $75 million and tightening safety regulations. While most of the country will be all for that, some oil-state Senators will no doubt tout the industry line.

Senators everywhere need to hear from the public, which is way ahead of them on this one.

Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your Senators you want a comprehensive climate bill with a price on carbon passed this year.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, ClimateWire, The Hill)

Carbon tax more acceptable than cap-and-trade?

(Photo of coal-burning plant near Kenosha, Wisc., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan )


Who'da thunk it? Cap-and-trade was the way to go the past few years because a carbon tax was politically impossible. Now, suddenly, that's turned on its head. A carbon tax -- or at least "a price on carbon" -- seems to have the best chance.

Climate legislation may not be dead after all, but cap-and-trade is. The odd triad – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – are preparing to release the main points of their “compromise” legislation to the Senate sometime this week or next -- and it doesn't include cap-and-trade.

They don’t have the 60 votes yet, haven’t even drafted the language yet, but are ready to work the crowd of uncertain senators and interested lobbyists to see if they can reach consensus.

President Obama says he’s willing to be flexible as long as the plan puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions and cuts them about 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, as he promised the rest of the world.

The three say their plan can do that.

Other important points:
• Three different mechanisms will be used for three different sectors.
• Power plants will go first and their emissions will be priced and capped and made more stringent over time.
• Industries, such as chemicals, cement and paper, will be able to wait several years, but will eventually be included.
• Motor fuel will have a price attached to carbon (that's right, a carbon tax) with at least some of the revenue going to transportation projects and helping auto companies becom more fuel-efficient.
• Nuclear power will be supported – Obama already took a step in that direction, announcing $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors in Georgia.
• R & D for carbon capture and sequestration will get support too.
• With emphasis on reducing dependence on foreign oil, plans for offshore drilling for oil and gas here are included.

Cap-and-trade a non-starter
The GOP has tagged cap-and-trade as “cap-and-tax” and has scared people into thinking energy costs will rise. The term is now political poison. Not to mention distrust of Wall Street and any trading mechanism.

What seems to be taking its place is “cap-and-dividend,” in which proceeds from a “price” on carbon (whatever form it takes) would go back to consumers to help them pay higher utility costs. The advantages are two:
• Voters won’t blame their Senators for sticking them with higher costs in a bum economy,
• Utilities will be able to raise prices to pay for the changes they have to make.

Can it pass?
It’s impossible to satisfy every politician, voter and interest group, but the triad is sure trying. Graham said even climate change skeptics can support this bill, which will provide jobs and reduce dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. It's also a way for the GOP to appeal to young voters, he told Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

The three are running up against a serious time crunch in a Senate still preoccupied with health reform and jobs -- and an election that has incumbents very nervous. (Note that John McCain is very much absent from this effort by his two amigos.) And Graham suggested if the Dems pass health reform by reconciliation, all bets are off.

Once the bill's details are worked out, the EPA would need about a month to do its analysis, and other departments would have to weigh in. If it is in fact possible to get 60 votes, we still have a problem – similar to the one in health care.

The House has already passed a bill, HR 2454 (last June – did you forget about that?) and it is based on cap-and-trade. So, will the two chambers be able to reconcile their differences before election season heats up?

It seems like a tall order.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, PlanetArk , New York Times)

BASIC nations meet to finalize GHG pledges as EU tries to regain climate leadership

(Photo of Chinese coal plant from Flickr and photographer ishmatt)

In preparation for the Jan. 31 deadline for countries to add GHG targets to the Copenhagen Accord, a new power bloc of four big developing countries, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (known as BASIC), will meet Jan. 25-28 in New Delhi to finalize their action plans and talk about how to get other developing countries to do the same.

Meanwhile the European Union meets this weekend in Spain to find a way to reassert its worldwide leadership on climate change.

The BASIC bloc was the one that met with President Obama behind closed doors at the end of COP15 and hammered out the deal that became the Copenhagen Accord. The EU, wanting a stronger agreement, felt marginalized.

Two follow-up UN meetings are planned, in Bonn this June and Mexico in November, to try to finish the business left undone in Copenhagen. The U.S. has indicated it may host the main polluting countries for discussions sometime soon. That could bring together BASIC and the EU.

Problems with the process
In the wake of the climate conference, variously called “chaotic,” “ugly,” and a “near disaster,” many are questioning the UN Framework’s ability to gather all parties and reach agreement on a follow-up treaty to Kyoto.

Copenhagen attracted far too many people (tens of thousands), critics say, and the appearance of 130 heads of state further complicated things. The conference was “too politically charged for the technocrats and way too technical for the politicians,” Ron Bradley, director of international climate change for the World Resources Institute, told E&E TV.

The U.S. role
In the United States, much rests on the Senate, which should match the House’s 17% cut by 2020 to meet Obama’s pledge at the conference. Obama got the Senators what they wanted wanted, a pledge from China and agreement to international review, but the Senate still seems unlikely to agree on cap-and-trade legislation before the next election the end of 2010.

It’s also unclear how the U.S. will come up with its share of the agreed-upon $100B annually for adaptation and mitigation in poor countries by 2020. Republicans aren’t happy about sending money elsewhere in a bad economy. Some money could be raised from private sources and some may have to be a diversion of other foreign aid funds, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton suggested recently.

Others countries’ pledges
Leading up to the Jan. 31 deadline to add some meat to the Accord with specific targets, Germany said it will go with its most ambitious plan of cutting 40% by 2020. The EU as a whole committed 20% but will talk about whether to go higher in an effort to re-assert its leadership. There is considerable disagreement among the union, which was a problem for them at Copenhagen.

China has committed to a 40-45% reduction in intensity and India to 20-25%.

South Africa pledged at COP15 to cut 34% intensity by 2020 and 42% by 2025. A new study says that will be difficult for the coal-dominated country to accomplish.

And Brazil just passed a law targeting a 39% cut by 2020, which amounts to a 20% reduction from 2005 levels.

Many countries are likely to miss the Jan. 31 deadline, according to Orbeo, a carbon-market consulting firm. Only about 50 of 194 have signed on so far. Both BASIC and the EU are planning to urge those who haven't done so to make their pledges.

Whether or not countries meet the deadline may well tell how serious they are about fighting climate change. And will help us gauge the success of Copenhagen.

(Sources: Bloomberg, PlanetArk, ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&ETV, London Guardian.)

Opposition to Obama = poor chance of passing Senate climate bill in 2010

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg/Wally Gomez)


Prospects for passing a climate bill in the Senate next year are looking grim when Senators return to Washington to pick up where they left off -- squabbling about health care. A bicameral conference group will try to reconcile the House and Senate versions in a way that can pass both houses, likely with no GOP votes. Tops on the agenda after that are financial regulatory reform and a jobs bill. So where will something as controversial as climate change fit in? Or will it?

Some Democratic Senators and the White House are pushing for a cap-and-trade bill this spring, before the heat of the 2010 election campaign picks up. But others are pushing back, suggesting postponement or even dropping the idea altogether.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who got big money in exchange for her vote for health reform, is the underdog in a re-election fight next fall. She’s pushing for an energy bill separate from cap-and-trade. Other Dems down on cap-and-trade include those from Louisiana (an oil state), North Dakota (the leading coal state, which also has oil reserves), Nebraska (concerned about the impact of high energy costs on farming) and Indiana. A vote for cap-and-trade to restrict fossil fuels is not something they want to campaign on next summer and fall.

If any bill materializes that can get 60 Senate votes it will be the compromise being forged by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Such a bill is not guaranteed to contain cap-and-trade and will inevitably have big giveaways to offshore drilling, nuclear power and “low-emissions” coal.

But that assumes they’ll get around to it, when the nation is much more focused on jobs and the economy. Time may run out, thanks to Republican refusal to cooperate on health care and their pretty uniform opposition to climate legislation.

Which brings me to something I’ve been stewing about for months: Why there is such solidarity among Republicans against Obama’s main initiatives. They’ve made it clear, they want him to fail.

The Harold Washington syndrome
It takes me back to the election of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, in the '80s. Most white aldermen (the Vrdolyak 29) banded together to oppose everything he wanted to do. Racism was more blatant, as one of their number showed up the day after the election with an all-white button on his jacket. They wanted him to fail and believed opposing him would play well politically with their white constituents.

Sound familiar? I’ve no doubt race is an issue here, as well as fear of something different (a foreigner from Kenya??) who was swept into office in large part by young people who hadn’t voted before and therefore were considered by many to be illegitimate. Don't think so?

What if Joe Biden where president, with the same agenda? Would there still be the tea parties, the vitriol stirred up by talk show hosts and by politicians like Sarah Palin? Would Joe Wilson have yelled, “You lie” during the President's health care address to Congress?

In Chicago’s case, Washington’s popularity with the people led to his re-election and a change of tune by his opposition who in many cases saw better opportunities for re-election by emphasizing they were now with him, not against him. That could happen with Obama.

But meanwhile, the country -- and the planet -- suffer while the Republicans just say “no.”

(Sources: The Hill, The Times of London, MSNBC)

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.

Senate climate bill going nowhere soon, if ever; will Obama, EPA and states be the back-up

(Photo of Capitol engulfed in emissions from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action.)

Don’t hold your breath for the Senate to act on climate change. It won’t happen until next spring –- at least.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), lead sponsor of the strongest bill in the Senate, told reporters Monday that Dem leadership won’t start climate debate until after both health reform and financial regulatory reform are disposed of – likely around March.

Meanwhile Kerry is working with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in an effort to craft a bipartisan bill that can garner 60 votes. (Why am I not thrilled about that?) They plan to have an outline ready within three weeks, before the international conference in Copenhagen.

A lot of moderate Democrats and most Republicans in the Senate are finding reasons to oppose climate legislation.

Two of them, Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) have offered an alternative that would emphasize new technology. It would provide $750 million each of the next 10 years for R&D on carbon capture, advanced biofuels, solar power, advanced batteries and recycling of used nuclear fuel. It would also give $1 billion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review advanced and small nuclear designs. The two said they did not support the Kerry-Boxer bill because it relies on cap-and-trade. (What they didn’t say is it will hurt coal.)

If climate action doesn’t happen by spring, conventional wisdom is that it will be stalled until after the 2010 elections. That doesn’t bode well. If Democrats lose one Senate seat, power will switch to the GOP, and climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (D-Okla.) will replace Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as Environment Committee chair. We’ll be back to “drill, baby, drill.”

Many Dems in the House, who voted for the climate bill that passed their chamber in June, are now under fire from more conservative Republicans in their districts. It’s unsure how that will play out in the voting booth.

If we can’t get something passed by early spring, it may be left to the president, the EPA and the states to provide the impetus for change. Obama made a pact with China this week for cooperation on renewable energy, the EPA is working on rules to regulate large CO2 emitters, and states in the East, West Coast and Midwest are likely to merge the cap-and-trade markets they have been working on regionally.

(Souces: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

(Photo of Capitol lost in smoke from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action)

Is the Kerry-Graham alliance a “game changer” in the hunt for 60 votes to pass a climate bill, or does it mean a watered-down bill that will have little impact on climate change?

In case you missed it, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, touted cap-and-trade along with more nuclear power, offshore drilling and “low-carbon coal,” as if there is such a thing.

I know we may have to toss a bone to the fence-sitters to get anything passed, but do we have to give them the whole cow?

I’m conflicted about nuclear power in the climate change debate. The fact that I’ve lived with it uneventfully in Illinois for decades may have something to do with it. But mainly, it doesn’t emit CO2. So I see it as the lesser of evils, compared with fossil fuels.

I know there are fearsome environmental concerns. But so are there with coal (ash, air and water pollutants, mountain-top removal) and with off-shore drilling (spills endangering coasts and wildlife). And sequestered CO2 from coal, if it’s feasible, has the risk of bubbling up and killing people.

Natural gas isn’t half bad (literally – it produces 50% of the CO2 in coal) and so is preferable among the fossil fuels.

Future is solar and wind
But we must keep our eye on the future, which is wind and solar (and things not yet in play). We need to get there as quickly as possible.

Nuclear should not be classified as a “renewable energy” as some moderates Dems want, and included in a renewable electricity standard (RES). If the final bill tosses a bone to the oil patch and coal interests to get passed, it should be insignificant compared with curbs on GHG, efficiency and incentives for true renewable energy.

Why do we need more oil anyway, if demand in the industrialize world peaked 4 years ago, as a research report revealed this week? The oil companies want to sell it to developing countries where the need is growing. But that means the U.S. public won’t benefit, just the multinational oil firms. Besides, Boxer notes, oil companies have leases they aren’t even using.

And lest we forget, a 2006 law already expanded drilling off 4 gulf states.

Hearings to begin
Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, begins hearings Oct. 27 on the Kerry-Boxer bill (not to be confused with the more conservative Kerry-Graham non-bill). That bill can probably pass out of committee with no drilling provision because it is heavily Democrat. We need to let Sen. Kerry know we much prefer Kerry-Boxer. He seems to have abandoned it already.

One bone of contention will be the so-called “border tax” – a tariff on imported items made under less stringent environmental conditions. Several Midwest senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are intent on protecting the manufacturing base in their states, and jobs. That’s a bloc of about 10 votes, Brown says. He also wants help for manufacturers to retool, as the House bill has.

On the opposite side of the trade issue is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who says he won’t accept a bill with a border-tax.

This battle is far from over. It's just beginning.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&E New PM)

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

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)

Senators try to stop EPA plan to regulate GHG

(Photo of power plant from Flickr and photographer bass_nroll)

Some senators are trying to block the EPA's newfound power to regulate greenhouse gases. They intend to tack an amendment on the EPA funding bill coming up this week. (To object, go to http://tinyurl.com/ntmom).

This effort comes at a time when EPA regulation may be our best hope for curbing greenhouse gases, as the Senate – embroiled in health care – seems more and more likely to punt climate legislation into next year. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said as much this week.

And if climate change doesn’t get resolved early in 2010, it will likely be delayed past mid-term elections to 2011 and a new Congress.

In the meantime, EPA regulation would get the country moving and give the president some achievement to take to the international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen in December. (That treaty is likely to face delay too – it’s very unlikely to be finalized this year. Meanwhile, the planet isn’t waiting for us humans to get our act together.)

Rules for autos ... and more
The EPA, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced this week new fuel economy and greenhouse gas rules to bring the fleet average of new cars and light trucks in 2016 up to 35.5 mpg, as well as GHG emissions down to 250 grams/mile.

Not only does this put fuel economy 5 years ahead of where the Congress mandated it in 2007, but more important: It’s the first time the EPA will regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The agency is entitled, even required, to do so under the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA, but the Bush Administration let it slide.

This has ramifications for all sources of GHG, including large industrial facilities and power plants. In addition to the automobile rules, the agency is finishing up work on its endangerment findings – showing GHG as pollution that endangers people’s health. The EPA is also finalizing regulations to make greenhouse gases part of the permitting process for facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of GHG a year. EPA head Lisa Jackson may sign the endangerment finding as soon as late this month.

Plan B
Some suggest the Senate may leave controversial and complex cap-and-trade on the shelf and just take action on energy – efficiency and renewable sources. They may “defer to the regulatory agency and duck tough political choices,” James Connaughton, former Bush environmental advisor, told ClimateWire.

But “energy-only is worse than no bill at all,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Problems with EPA rules
EPA restrictions alone may not do the job, though, with time running out to stop the growth of greenhouse gases. With EPA regulation only, “you can’t get enough of the job done fast enough,” warned the Natural Resources Defense Council’s David Hawkins.

Furthermore, lawsuits could delay progress for years. Already the National Automobile Dealers Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed suit to prevent regulation of motor vehicles at the federal or state level.

The best answer is to have both – EPA regulations and climate change legislation, which is what most environmental groups want.

We need to protect the right of the EPA to regulate and they need to get started because once they do so it will be more difficult for opponents to have legislation pre-empt them. At the same time a cap-and-trade system will help put a cap on emissions and move the country toward its desired goal. And a new administration wouldn't be able to stop progress in its tracks by changing the rules.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairs of the Environment and Foreign Relations committees, have been crafting a Senate climate bill they will release later this month. They seem committed to moving ahead with it. Urge your Senators to keep climate and energy on their urgent agenda for this fall at the EDF website.

(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, dailygreen.com)

Public still supports Obama on climate change

Despite waning support for Obama’s health care strategy, the public still supports the president’s handling of energy and climate. Maybe the industry’s efforts to scare people on this issue haven’t taken hold yet.

A mid-August Washington Post-ABC poll showed 55% support Obama on energy, versus just 30% who didn’t. The complexity of the issue resulted is 15% saying they had no opinion.

On cap-and-trade specifically, 52% approved setting a cap on GHG emissions and trading permits, while 43% did not. This was unchanged from June. Among Republicans, however, support dropped to 37% from 45% two months earlier, perhaps reflecting lobbying and perhaps a hardening against Obama policies.

Other findings:
*The majority said overhauling energy policy would not raise energy bills. 58% said if it did they’d be willing to pay $10 a month more. But only 39% were willing to pay $25 more.
*40% expected to see more jobs created in a shift to green energy, while 20% thought jobs would be lost. 40% said there would be no change.
*90% favored more development of wind and solar energy.
*80% supported electric auto technology and 70% were for rebates to encourage purchase of more fuel-efficient cars.
*52% were for more nuclear plants unless, of course, they were close to home (down to 35%).

Despite still-favorable public sentiment, the odds of the Senate passing a strong cap-and-trade bill are long. With a filibuster threatened, the votes are not there yet, as pro- and anti-climate bill groups go on the road to press their case. And much may depend on the president's ability to succeed on health reform.

(Sources: Washington Post, Greenwire)

Stimulus money boosts clean energy, efficiency

(Photo of wind turbine installation in Indiana from Flicker and photographer indywriter/Rob Annis)

You may be wondering how (and when) the $787 billion stimulus bill will help renewable energy? It was supposed to be part of the mix, remember – green jobs? Well, four programs were announced by the Department of Energy in the past two weeks, possibly in reaction to complaints the stimulus isn’t coming fast enough to stimulate.

Clean energy grants
Grants totaling $3 billion will soon be available to clean energy companies, with applications being taken starting Aug. 1. The money will cover 30% of the cost of any approved project and will be paid upfront.

These grants will be available for a wide variety of technologies, including wind, solar, hydro, landfill gas, biomass, fuel cells, geothermal heat pumps, and combined heat and power. They should help pay for about 5,000 projects, according to the DOE.

Private investment in renewable energy has sagged recently, reflecting overall economic and credit problems. The stimulus will provide a short-term boost, though officials say cap-and-trade is needed to spur long-term demand for clean energy.

State projects
DOE also gave $141 million to several states last week for energy-efficiency and clean-energy projects. This is just a portion of $3.1B allocated for the states. Hawaii got $10.4 million for energy efficiency in buildings while Texas received $87.5 million for efficiency in public facilities. Others states getting money were Maine, Nebraska and New Mexico. So far half of the money allocated to the states for such projects has been released.

States also got $448 million for weatherization projects. This should affect some 125,000 homes in 13 states, according to DOE. Households with incomes up to 200% of the poverty level are eligible and should be able to save an average of 32% on heating bills once the work is done.

Appliance rebates
Finally, $300 million was announced this week for rebates for Energy Star appliances. States will administer the program and determine both the appliances covered and the level of rebates, as well as a recycling plan for the old appliances. Kind of a “cash for clunkers” in the kitchen. Initial applications must be filed by the states by Aug. 15.

A total of $174.9 billion of the $787 billion in stimulus money had been made available by July 4, and $60.4 billion had been paid out, according to recovery.gov. As of that date DOE had made $7.15B available and paid out $243,000 for clean energy and efficiency.

(Sources: Climatewire, E&E News PM)

Climate bill waits in Senate for health reform

Climate action in the Senate is being pushed back to autumn because health reform is now dominating the agenda. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week he is delaying until Sept. 28 the deadline for 6 committees working on the Senate version of cap-and-trade.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), taking the lead on the Senate’s comprehensive climate legislation, said her Environment and Public Works Committee would wait till after the August recess to complete markup of the bill. Democrats have a strong majority on her committee so she’s not likely to have trouble getting approval and moving it to the floor. Meanwhile, she and several other committee chairs have started holding hearings.

Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who will work with Boxer to draw up specifics of carbon-allowance distribution, is currently taking the lead on health legislation.

The extra time will also allow advocates to press for the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

How the vote stands now
As of July 7, there are 45 yes and probably yes votes, according to an analysis by Environment and Energy Daily. (See where your senators stand at www.eenews.net/eed/documents) And there are 32 firm and probable no’s. The yes votes include Independents Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both Maine and both probable.) All the solid no’s are GOP.

The 23 fence-sitters (17 of them Democrats) are being barraged by both sides and will likely force some concessions to come over to the yes side. This could make the Senate bill even weaker than the House version, while environmentalists hope it will be stonger. Many in the middle have their hot-button issues. For Mary Landrieu (D-La.) it’s increasing traditional oil and gas production. For some Midwesterners it’s protecting manufacturing. The trick is to collect 12 votes (maybe 13, depending on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s health) without crippling the bill.

The Agriculture Committee is likely to follow the lead of its counterpart in the House to make additional demands, said Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), committee chair. He is expected to want provisions more favorable to ethanol and farms. After winning concessions in intense negotiations, the ag bloc gave the House version enough votes to pass 219-212.

Other committees having a say include Energy, which already approved a bill dealing with energy but not cap-and-trade; Foreign Relations; and Commerce. Boxer intends to draw on the energy bill for hers. It includes a 15% Renewable Energy Standard (RES) many see as too weak and allows drilling much closer to the west coast of Florida.

Reid and the White House hope to have passage of the bill in time to influence the next big international (post-Kyoto) negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

So the proverbial “whole world is watching.”

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Some Dems could lose seats over climate vote

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Cliff1006.)

As soon as the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act was over in the House (likely even before), gleeful Republicans were aiming to pick off some swing seats in next year’s election.

Identifying the bill as a job-killer and “national energy tax,” the Republican National Campaign Committee swung into action last week, running radio ads and sending out robo calls attacking moderate Democratic congressmen who voted for it.

So the 2010 campaign has begun.

But liberals are not far behind as Americans United for Change and a coalition of the Blue Green Alliance, Environmental Defense and America’s Building Trades Unions started robo calls and posting TV ads of their own, thanking the same reps for voting to “create millions of clean energy jobs, not in India or China, but right here in America.” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said the Dems are not going to “run away” from the issue, which they think is popular with the public.

Recent polls showed strong support for renewable energy jobs that would lessen dependence on foreign oil – though people weren’t as concerned about greenhouse gases. Hence the strong emphasis on jobs.

One seat that’s in play is in the southern half of New Mexico, a major oil and gas hub. Former Rep. Steve Pearce (R) will try to gain back his seat from Harry Teague (D), who wrested away the traditionally Republican district after Pearce resigned to run for Senate. (Tom Udall beat him by 20%.) GOP ads in New Mexico are claiming the bill would cost the district 3,000 jobs. The Dems are countering by linking Pearce to President Bush and the country’s financial woes.

Others being targeted include Reps. Ben Chandler (Ky.), John Boccieri, Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Mark Schauer (Mich.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Frank Krotovil (Md.), Dan Maffei (NY), Mike Doyle (Pa.) and Tom Perrielo and Rick Boucher (Va.).

Could it be their fast action is really a warning to undecided senators as the focus of cap-and-trade shifts to that chamber?

The GOP has not yet gone after (though conservative commentators have) the 8 Republicans who voted for the bill, which won by just 7 votes. They are Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mike Castle (Dela.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John McHugh (N.Y.), and Frank LoBiodo, Leonard Lance and Chris Smith (all N.J.). Most of them no doubt voted as they did because their constituents wanted them to and they hope to keep their seats. In Kirk’s case, he’s being touted as a GOP candidate for Obama’s old senate seat (now being sat in by Roland Burris).

In the end it’s (almost) all about politics. The planet be damned.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E PM, Greenwire)

Waxman-Dingell power struggle in House could set direction for global warming bill

(Photo of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) from Flickr, Public Citizen and photographer Bridgette Blair)

Weekly Angst: If the House can’t pass a good climate change bill with its current leadership, then the thinking is a coup may be in order. Thus liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has launched an effort to usurp the chairmanship held by conservative auto-industry ally Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). Dingell is head of Energy Committee, responsible for bringing global warming legislation to the floor, but has been moving very slowly over the past two years, finally issuing a draft proposal last month. Waxman is the No. 2 Democrat on the committee.

At the same time, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is considering going after Dingell colleague Rick Boucher’s (D-Va.) post as head of Energy’s important subcommittee on air quality. In a move to circumvent industry-friendly octogenarian Dingell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) named Markey to chair a select committee on global warming over for past 2 years. He held hearings but had no authority over legislation in that post.

Dingell-Boucher bill
Boucher has worked with Dingell to issue a series of white papers and co-authored his proposal, which:
• Relies on a cap-and-trade system covering 88% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sets a goal of reducing GHG 6% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, 44% in 2030 and 80% by 2050.
• Phases in requirements for utilities in 2012, large industrial plants in 2014 and residential and commercial distribution companies for natural gas in 2017.
• Sidesteps how carbon allowances would be distributed, but says any free credits would be phased out by 2026.
• Increases building code efficiency of 30% by 2010 and 50% by 2020.
• Allows companies to meet some of their compliance targets by offsets, as well as banking or borrowing credits.

Letter of Principles
Waxman, Markey and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) presented their own Letter of Principles signed by 152 House members who support – among other things – a faster reduction of emissions to 15-20 percent below current levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century and would auction all allowances. For more on the Letter of Principals, see an earlier post of Earthling Angst.

Dingell and Waxman are now in a rush to round up House members to support their bids for the chairmanship. Dingell is favored to get support from reps from oil and coal states. Waxman is seen as friendlier to expected Obama Administration’s policies.

(Source: E&E News PM)

Will financial crisis and bailout help or hurt in fight against global warming?

(Headline collage from Flickr and Mother Pie/Hattie Page)

Weekly Angst: The credit crisis and $800-plus billion U.S. government bailout plan will likely have an impact on spending on climate change, but will the positives outweigh the negatives? While conventional wisdom might say there’ll be little money left over to fight global warming, many see green technology as the engine that will drive future growth and revival – at home and around the world.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors last week predicted 4.2 million new green jobs by 2038, adding to the 751,000 already in existence in 2006.

And green technology in Silicon Valley is one of the few industries still growing in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger noted.

The bailout
The add-on to the $700 billion bailout extended tax credits to help renewable energy, efficiency and sales of plug-in cars. While wind energy is a bit shaky, with only a 1-year extension and damage to some of its main investors – AIG, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia – the industry sees slower growth in 2010 but is still hopeful that utilities and other new investors will take a stake in the fast-growing new energy source.

Solar seems in a somewhat better position with an 8-year extension of production tax credits. The demand for solar panels reportedly still exceeds demand.

The American auto industry says it will remain on track to continue producing smaller, fuel-efficient cars and looks forward to competing for the $25B in low-interest loans from the federal government approved earlier this month.

Good signs
Other signs of hope that climate change will remain a high priority in Washington:
• The economic crisis raises the possibility of Democrats getting the 60-vote majority in the Senate they will need to pass a renewable energy standard (RES) and a cap-and-trade bill.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says climate change remains a priority for her.
• There will be international pressure on the United States to negotiate a viable post-Kyoto treaty.
• And front-runner Barack Obama, should he become president, has touted a $150 billion renewable energy economic plan and produce 5 million jobs.

Problems
Some Republicans, however, may balk at passing a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, because they’ve always been concerned about its impact on the economy and that fear will be heightened. There are those who think such a bill might be held over till 2010, delaying action another year.

Others raise the alternative of a carbon tax, much easier to understand than another complex financial market. But worldwide carbon trading is thriving and expected to grow 80% to $116 billion by next year, thanks in large part to the Kyoto mandate for the European Union.

A major concern for a post-Kyoto agreement is that rich countries may be unwilling to come up with the money and technology for developing countries needed in order to get them to participate in curbing greenhouse gases.

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon expressed concern last week that short-term financial emergency will eclipse the longer-term problem of global warming.

But finance ministers from around the world, at a World Bank and IMF meeting over the weekend, pledged to keep climate change on a front burner. Even bankrupt Iceland’s minister said, “We can’t afford to delay responding to climate change.”

And economists and UN leaders are creating a green New Deal. The Green Economic Initiative, spearheaded by the UN Environmental Programme, will be launched next week in London with its focus on renewable energy, other green technology and saving the world’s natural systems. Funded by the European Commission, Norway and Germany, the Initiative will – among other things – work to save forests, whose loss, they say, equals more than $2 trillion a year. The Initiative could produce hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide, according to Pavan Sukhder, chairman of Deutschbank's Global Market Center.

(Sources: Reuters, Greenwire, ClimateWire, PlanetArk, Daily Green, The Independent)

Northeast and Western states to test carbon trading in regional markets

News Update: Ten Northeast states have launched the nation’s first cap-and-trade system, raising $38.5 million for renewable energy and efficiency. It applies to electric utilities and about 90% of the allowances will be auctioned. The goal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (pronounced “Reggie”) is to cut CO2 emissions 10% between 2014-18. There is a problem, though. The cap, set several years ago as the plan was being developed, may be too high to make much difference. GHG emissions in the region have leveled off in recent years instead of growing as expected. So the cap is higher than current usage. Some say the states may need to set a new, lower cap. Meanwhile, in the West, 7 states and 4 provinces across Canada unveiled a blueprint for a similar plan. The Western Climate Initiative aims to cut emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The Western plan would be economy-wide, including industry, transportation and homes. In a concession to industry, it plans to auction only 10% of allowances, giving the rest free to polluters and causing concerns some businesses could make windfall profits, as happened in the initial European plan. While both regional plans seem to be imperfect, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the states are moving ahead where the federal government had failed to act. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times, AP)

10 reasons why Obama is best on global warming

(Photo of Barack Obama by Peter Holderness/Medill News Service)

Weekly Angst: Saving the planet is taking a back seat to the financial crisis right now. But to many of us, climate change remains the top concern for the next president of the United States, because we’re running out of time to stop the catastrophic results of a warming planet. It’s getting so bad that Al Gore, a former vice president, is suggesting civil disobedience.

Unfortunately, when climate change does come up these days, it has morphed into talk about offshore drilling and achieving independence from foreign oil, which is the way John McCain has framed it. The maverick who championed climate change legislation with his buddy Joe Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 has, in this campaign, shifted from concern about greenhouse gases to concern about high gas prices and getting off foreign oil. That means American oil is just fine with him. In fact, the more the better.

The League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and Environment America, the three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates, all jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon early on, because he so clearly will lead the nation to a better place on global warming. As Environment America said, McCain is not the right president to reverse 8 years of the anti-environment Bush Administration.

Talking points
Here are 10 top reasons why Obama is the better candidate on global warming:

1. Obama favors cutting greenhouse gases as much as scientists say we should. His goal is an 80% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2050. He doesn’t try to second-guess science. McCain’s goal is 60%.
2. Obama has a much better voting record. On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, Obama’s lifetime record is 86%. McCain’s is 24. During the last 2 years, McCain has missed every important environmental vote, including 2 on renewable energy where a yea vote from him could have made the difference. He deliberately missed all 8 tries to extend the renewable energy tax credits.
3. Obama favors an RES and subsidies for renewable energy. He has called for a renewable electricity standard of 25% by 2025 and for investing $150 billion in renewable energy. McCain opposes RES, as well as subsidies to alternative energies like solar and wind, preferring to let the market work unfettered. Though he seems to favor incentives for nuclear power.
4. Obama is much more cautious about nuclear power. He says it may need to be part of the mix, but safety and waste storage problems must be resolved first. McCain, on the other hand, makes nuclear power a major part of his energy portfolio, calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, and 100 eventually.
5. Obama wants all credits in a cap-and-trade system to be auctioned. In other words, polluters must pay for their allowances. McCain says permits would eventually be auctioned, but should mostly be given free at first, and he favors polluters being able to bank or borrow credits based on the economy.
6. Obama wants to double the fuel efficiency of autos in 18 years. McCain, who missed the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) vote of 2007, says he would enforce the new standard of 35 mpg by 2020 but isn’t looking to increase it. Obama voted for the CAFE bill.
7. Obama says offshore drilling will do little to help gasoline prices and was for the ban. He’s since softened his stance, saying he might accept some offshore drilling if it would help get other things he wants, like RES. McCain strongly favors drilling offshore, saying it will help solve the problems of high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. After McCain announced this new position favoring offshore drilling, and became a cheerleader for the cause, campaign donations from oil and gas went up more than double, or by more than a million dollars.
8. Obama took a stand against a summer repeal of the gas tax, when McCain and Hillary Clinton called for one. Obama called it a gimmick that would not help lower prices.
9. Obama favors a windfall profits tax on big oil companies. He would like to see that money go to people who are struggling to pay for gas. McCain is against a windfall profits tax.
10. Obama picked Sen. Joe Biden as is running mate. Biden has an 83% lifetime score with LCV and proposed a bill in 1986 to deal with global warming. McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has expressed doubt about the human role in causing climate change, filed suit to de-list the polar bear as endangered, and favors drilling in ANWR.
For more on the candidates' environmental views, go to News21 Politics and the Environment, and click on Charging Up the Elections. News 21 is a summer project of Carnegie-Knight fellows at Northwestern University. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the faculty members on the project.)

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, barackobama.com, johnmccain.com, news21project.org, New York Times, salon.com)

Strong climate bill unveiled by Rep. Markey

(Photo of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) from Flickr and photographer Keith Ivey.)

Washington Report 3: Expect U. S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a champion of strong climate change legislation, to introduce his iCap bill (Invest in Climate Action & Protection Act) in the House Tuesday. The bill calls for:
• 85% cut in greenhouse gases by mid-century
• a cap-and-trade plan to start in 2012
• 94% of credits auctioned from the start, with 6% given to vulnerable industries like glass, steel and cement
• Auction proceeds going to tax cuts for low- and middle-income people, energy technology research, energy efficiency, adaptation to climate change
• A carrot-and-stick approach to trade with other nations, with the carrot being access to billions for clean technology and forestation for those with similarly strong climate plans and the stick an added cost in the form of having to buy carbon credits if they want to export carbon-intensive products to us
• Overriding the EPA decision to deny California (and many other states) the ability to curb tailpipe emissions
• New EPA regulations for coal mines, landfills, large animal feeding operations and other emitters of greenhouse gases not otherwise covered in the bill.
This is a bill environmentalists have to love. It shows many of the Senate bill’s shortcomings. (Source: ClimateWire)

Environmental leaders weigh in with their solutions to global warming

(Photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from Flickr and photographer King dafy/Devin Ford.)

Weekly Angst: Last weekend we heard from several climate leaders that the impact of global warming will be even worse than predicted a year or two ago. Now, some words of wisdom on what we need to do to salvage the situation.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance:
The U.S. has the second largest geothermal resources in the world, plus enough wind in 3 states to meet all our electricity needs, as well as enough potential solar power in 19% of desert in the Southwest to meet nearly all our needs, even if everyone had a plug-in car. In order to bring about a renewable-energy revolution, the new president should immediately:
1) Initiate a cap-and-trade system to put pressure on carbon emissions and reward energy innovation.
2) Revamp the antiquated power grid so it can transmit renewable energy over long distances. Open it up by getting rid of state rules that restrict access and add “smart” features to deliver power where and when it is needed.
3) Spend $1 trillion over the next 15 years on infrastructure, paid for by government, utilities, investors and entrepreneurs.
4) Encourage much more efficient buildings and machines, through energy efficiency and tax credits.
(Source: Vanity Fair)

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and author of the new “Earth: The Sequel”:
The Congress must mandate a cap-and-trade system with a steadily declining limit on global warming pollution. Survival depends on a “wholesale reinvention of the way we make and use energy. We need a “second industrial revolution as sweeping as [the one] a century ago … We will need to harness energy from the sun, the waves, living organisms, and the heat embedded in the planet. We will need to reinvent automobiles, clean up emissions from the immense and rapidly growing coal infrastructure, use the energy we have far more efficiently and put an end to tropical deforestation. A cap on carbon will launch all these solutions into the mainstream.” Energy innovators abound but are up against industries that have subsidies, trade agreements and regulations in their favor, plus control distribution routes. Cap-and-trade would allow the market to decide who “really can deliver the goods.” (Source: “Earth: the Sequel.”)

Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” (1989) and founder and organizer of Step It Up 2007, which has turned into 1sky.org, and now founder of a new global group, 350.org:
The key is to rally public opinion. “We need a movement … a political swell larger than the civil rights movement …. Without it we’re not going to best the fossil fuel companies and automakers and the rest of the vested interests that are keeping us from change.” Once there’s a price on carbon, money will flow quickly to efficiency and conservation. The savings will be huge. “There’s not enough money in the world to deal with global warming if it gets out of control.” (Sources: Greenwire, Salt Lake Tribune, Yes! Magazine.)

Guy Duancy, organizer, speaker and co-author of “Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change”:
Buildings, transportation and food/forests are each responsible for about a third of CO2 emissions. So, the solutions lie in those areas, as well as the electricity that powers homes and industry.
1) Buildings: The U.S. Conference of Mayors approved an initiative to have all new buildings and major renovations in the U.S. carbon neutral by 2030. Britain requires new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2016. In existing buildings, owners could cut energy use 20-50% with new windows, super-insulation, heat-recovery, and efficient boilers and appliances. We need tax credits and rules like San Francisco’s requiring owners to upgrade buildings before they are sold.
2) Transportation: A switch to electric cars and plug-in hybrids made of light-weight material, combined with high-speed trains, bus rapid transit, biking, walking and telecommuting could reduce fuel need to about 5%. Long-distance trucking emissions should be severely curtailed by using more goods locally and switching to hydrogen-enhanced hybrid biofueled trucks.
3) Food: Livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gases. Methane from cows’ stomachs and nitrous oxide from their manure, and in fertilizer, are far more potent than CO2. The solution is to eat less meat and dairy and more locally grown and organic vegetarian fare.
4) Forests: Destruction of the world’s rainforests releases 17% of world carbon emissions. We need to protect forests in the Amazon, Indonesia and the Congo by buying them, putting them in trust for indigenous people, and paying for policing against illegal logging.
5) Electric power: The challenge is to make the transition to renewable energy in time. We need non-corrupted governments to cap oil wells, close coal mines, require efficiency in autos, buildings and appliances, and redirect investment to renewables.
(Source: Yes! Magazine, click on buildings, electricity, transportation, food and forests.)

Take action: If you haven't already done so, join the 1.2 million-plus who have signed up for Al Gore's We and read the list of solutions they propose.