I had an intimate chat today with Sen. John Kerry in Chicago

Well, I guess I should mention there were about 25 other people from the environmental community at the meeting this morning. Kerry had come to talk about what we can do to help pass a good climate bill in Washington -- and prevent a bad one that would strip the EPA of power to regulate greenhouse gases.

The senator, who but for Ohio would have been president, and has become the leader on climate change, was in town to pitch Alexi Giannoulias, Democrat for Senate, as a friend to the environment and a much-needed vote to keep the Dems in charge of at least one chamber on Capitol Hill.

Kerry is clearly passionate about the need for a strong climate law and just as clearly distressed by the mood of the country and the lack of interest in doing something about "pollution," as he calls it. The Republicans branded "cap and trade" as "cap and tax" and destroyed all chances for the only effective way to bring in revenue to help companies and consumers cope with the change, and provide money for R&D to move the country forward.

It's so obvious, he said, that a strong climate bill would have multiple benefits -- creating jobs, preventing more and worse droughts and floods, improving health, preserving national security and reducing dependence on foreign oil. But a carbon tax won't do the job, he said. "It would have to be a big tax to influence behavior, and it has no target (to reduce CO2)." Utilities would likely just "write it into the cost of doing business."

On clean energy jobs, he said, we're falling behind many other countries. "We're on the margins. We're not doing nearly what we could be doing." While China is giving state subsidies to renewable energy "we're not even doing all we legally could," with incentives and grants.

And we're not going to catch up with "a bunch of Neanderthal flat-earthers" in the Congress.

"We're in a very strange place right now, and we've got to break out of it."

He expects an energy bill of some kind, but says it will be greatly watered down to perhaps a renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency provision. "They'll cherry-pick the easy things," he said, and avoid the hard ones.

He gave a bill by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) to delay for two years the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases a good chance of passing. "I'm more than worried," he said. "It's going to be a very, very tough fight," one he said he would lead.

With so much money on the other side -- made worse by the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling (which he called unbelievably dangerous) -- the only way to get decent climate legislation is for the people to "rekindle the grassroots bite" that in the '70s helped pass the Clean Air Act, the establishment of the EPA and so many other environmental steps forward. "In the '70s we did teach-ins, and organized around them." Individual letters and phone calls are needed to counter the pressure on senators from the other side, he said. "Pre-printed cards have far less impact."

In the next two weeks, Kerry urged, environmentalists must work hard to get out the vote for candidates who will be on their side. Giannoulias put in an appearance at the end and the two men embraced -- both very tall, one distinguished-looking with a mop of thick gray hair, the other a fresh-faced hopeful in his 30s. They both said they hoped to serve together in the Senate.

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)

Reid goes for 4-part energy/climate bill by August recess

We may actually get an energy and climate bill in the Senate this summer. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said floor debate will likely begin the week of July 26. And if the matter is not resolved, Senators are warned they may have to stay in Washington an extra week past the Aug. 6 adjournment date – something they don’t want to do.

Reid is expected to do his thing and cobble together a bill he thinks can get 60 votes.

He says it will have four parts:
• A Gulf spill response that will tighten regulations on offshore drilling.
• A clean energy/jobs section, quite likely in the form of a renewable electricity standard, with help for consumers
• A tax package
• A limit on pollution, including greenhouse gases, from utilities.

Whether the bill will, in the end, include a cap on GHG is still in question.

President Obama is sticking to his guns that the final bill needs a carbon cap, and many experts say without one if won’t do much to curb GHG emissions. Pundits have criticized him for being too quick to compromise in the past and perhaps he’s learned his lesson.

Working with Republican Snowe
At this point only one Republican, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), supports the cap on carbon for utilities, and she is working with Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) on language to include limits on power plants starting in 2013. Power plants spew about one-third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Kerry and Lieberman also have scaled back their climate bill to cap utilities only, while Bingaman’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee gets set to mark up a bunch of bills Thursday, that would increase production of electric plug-in cars and trucks, increase R&D for natural gas and bump up incentives for nuclear and solar. The panel has already approved an RES and offshore drilling reforms.

No other Republicans have jumped onboard and several moderate Democrats are wavering.

House action
Meanwhile, in the House – which you may recall passed a comprehensive climate bill last summer – the Natural Resources Committee is looking to vote today on Chairman Nick Rahall’s (D-W.Va.) bill overhauling offshore drilling rules, which includes:
*Reorganizing the agency in charge of leasing, enforcing and revenue collection (something the Administration is already doing).
*Requiring a good blowout prevention and response plan.
*Mandating monthly inspection of rigs.
*Repealing some parts of the 2005 Energy Policy Act that gave royalty waivers to drillers.
*Ending a policy of exemptions from environmental review.

(Sources: Politico, E&E Daily, Senatus, The Hill, PM, PlanetArk)

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)

Reid to use spill to fashion new energy and climate bill

(Photo of Harry Reid from Flickr and talkradionews.)

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 should make it easier to pass climate legislation to get us off fossil fuels, now that we’ve seen the damage deepwater drilling can do. Right?

Not necessarily. Pundits have been saying the Kerry-Lieberman bill will lose the possibility of any GOP support if it backs away from more offshore drilling, and it will lose Dem support if it encourages it. The lines have hardened.

So how can Dem leadership improve its chances of passing a climate and clean energy bill before the November elections, when Republicans are sure to pick up more seats?

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has had an “aha moment.” He’s going to turn this into a Spill Bill, with emphasis on holding oil companies accountable and reducing their tax breaks. With public concern about the spill running high, detractors would have more trouble voting against such a bill, he reasons.

Last week Reid sent a memo to eight committee chairmen with a role in climate and energy, asking them to put forth ideas about how to make oil drilling safer, make the companies pay for damage they cause and reduce some of the tax breaks they gained over the past decade.

Reid wants to bring a bill to the floor in July. Whether it will be a combination of oil spill and Kerry-Lieberman or oil spill and energy-only (no cap, no trade, no carbon limit) is still to be determined.

President Obama voiced his support for a comprehensive bill of the Kerry-Lieberman variety last week, but he may have to settle for less.

Reid will meet with the relevant committee chairs next Thursday to talk about how to proceed.

However they shape it, a climate/clean energy bill is going to be hard to pass before November.

My guess is they’ll end up with a Spill Bill that also encourages clean energy (perhaps with a renewable electricity standard) and other incentives to produce and use clean energy – and probably nuclear power. That may be the only way to get 60 votes, and even that will be hard.

Big Oil still has many supporters. Witness calls from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to drill off their coasts, because their economies depend on it.

Stay tuned.

(Sources: Mother Jones, Politico, E&E News PM, Climate Progress)

Academy study reaffirms climate change, but guess what? We have to change consumer habits to save energy

(Image of Earth from Flickr NASA and Woodleywonderworks)


The planet is warming and human activities are the main cause, reaffirms a trilogy of reports, “America’s Climate Choices,” released last week by the National Academy of Sciences.

With business as usual the Earth’s temperature will rise between 2-11.4 degrees F by 2100, the Academy said. And sea levels could rise up to 6.5 feet, considerably higher than previous estimates.

Generally confirming the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel, which deniers have tried to sully in recent months, the Academy calls for the following steps, which will be very difficult but technically possible:

• Reduce the demand for goods and services needing energy (this is the tough one, requiring changes in consumer behavior).
• Move to low- and zero-carbon energy sources.
• Capture carbon from the atmosphere, with forest and soil, but also with some kind of carbon “scrubber.”
• Improve energy efficiency.

What we need to do now
In the short range, to accomplish these longer-range goals, we must:

• Set an economy-wide price on carbon.
• Invest in and incentivise new technologies.
• Exert U.S. leadership for the rest of the world.
• Have a flexible attitude toward innovation by states, localities and regions.
• Pay attention to greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

The reports were requested in 2008 by Congress, which also asked for recommendations on how to solve the climate problem. The study calls for a closer link between research and decision-making.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) applauded the study and said it would help passage of his climate bill, the American Power Act. The two dovetail nicely, with the marked exception that there’s not enough in the bill to curb deforestation.

Download summaries of the three reports at americasclimatechoices.org
.

(Sources: National Academy of Sciences, Wall Street Journal.)

Kerry-Lieberman bill would create 200,000 jobs a year and cut greenhouse gases 22% by 2020, 42% by 2030

(Photo of Diablo nuclear power plant in California from Flickr and photographer Mike Baird)

The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill would spur a surge of 200,000 new jobs a year from 2011 to 2025 and would cut greenhouse gases 22% by 2020 and 42% by 2030, according to a new study by the non-partisan Peterson Institute of International Economics .

The jobs would be largely for construction of new power plants and increased use of biofuel. They would help with the recovery from recession, but would slow to business-as-usual after 2025, the study says.

This first analysis of the American Power Act was released Thursday. It forecasts what the U.S. energy picture will by 2030 if the bill is passed.

The changes will be significant, though not as much as some might hope.

• Fossil fuels will drop to 70% of the energy supply from 84% today.
• Renewable energy will rise to 14% from 8%, with wind growing the most, followed by biomass and then solar.
• Nuclear power will double to 16% from 8%.
• Nuclear and renewables will power about half the electricity.
• Carbon capture and sequestration will be a factor for both coal and natural gas.
• Oil use will drop 33-40% as transportation turns increasingly to ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. U.S. spending on foreign oil will fall to $93B from $144B per year.
• Homes will see about a 3% increase in electricity rates between 2011-2020, while gasoline will rise about 5%. Home heating oil will rise as well. But price increases will be mitigated by increased efficiency and the return to consumers of revenues from purchased allowances.

Two side benefits will be reduction of other pollutants, such as mercury and nitrogen oxides, plus a sizeable reduction in water use.

Download the study.

(Sources: Greenwire, Peterson Institute of International Economics)

Offshore drilling still in climate bill, but with restrictions

The word is out about the contents of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill, due for release at a 1:30 p.m. (EDT) news conference Wednesday. The Hill has links to a summary of the new draft on its Web site.

Offshore drilling is still in it but there are protections:
• If a state wants to drill within 75 feet of shore, nearby states that could be impacted by a spill can veto it.
• Safety regulations will be added later, pending the 30-day review by the Interior Department.

What's in the bill
Other key elements of the bill, the American Power Act, include:
• Cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
• Pre-emption of states or regions having their own carbon market, but allowing them to restrict GHG.
• Pre-emption of EPA regulation over GHG from new plants but not over existing plants.
• $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear energy
• A price on carbon, with a floor of $12 a ton, to rise 3% a year and a ceiling of $25, to rise 5% a year.
• 37.5% revenue-sharing for states that allow drilling off their shores.
• Two-thirds of utility auction revenue (after paying down the deficit) returned to customers to help pay rising utility costs, referred to by some as cap-and-dividend.
• $7B a year for transportation infrastructure and efficiency.
• Investment in electric vehicles and tax incentives to switch heavy vehicles to natural gas.
• Expansion of the clean energy tax credit by $5B.
• Fuel producers and importers will pay a price for allowances, which they will not be able to trade.
• $2B for coal plants that capture and store carbon.

What happens next
After release, the bill is expected to go to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who will merge it with some other pieces to craft a bill he thinks can get 60 votes. The Energy Committee bill, which passes committee last year, will be one of those pieces. It included a renewable electricity standard of 15%, efficiency measures and an overhaul of federal financing for clean energy projects. It also included allowances for wider oil and gas leasing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which isn’t likely to fly.

Progressives are hoping the bill will move in their direction as it is changed, to woo those on the left opposed to more offshore drilling.

Debate is expected in June or July.

(Sources: The Hill, Climate Progress , Sierra Club, the Washington Post Carbon blog, Greenwire)

Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

Did Lieberman really say, “Accidents will happen” about oil spill? Lines harden on climate bill over offshore drilling

(Photo of Deepwater Horizon explosion that lead to massive oil leak from Flickr and SkyTruth)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was explaining Tuesday why expanded offshore drilling would not be taken out of the climate bill, despite some Dem Senators’ calls for its removal in light of the horrendous ongoing spill fouling the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters, “This terrible accident is very rare in drilling. Accidents will happen. You learn from them and you try to make sure they don’t happen again.”

So, let’s see. Of the three sponsors of the Senate climate bill, who have worked long and hard to craft something palatable to all parties, the Republican, Lindsey Graham (S.C.) dropped out about a week ago in a snit because immigration reform might come up before climate. Now Lieberman is insisting on keeping offshore oil in the bill despite the Gulf disaster.

And many likely supporters of the bill (all of whom are Dems because they’re the only ones supporting it) are now saying “no” to the offshore drilling section.

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) spoke out a news conference, backed up by the heads of some major environmental groups.

Nelson said if he had to filibuster to stop the bill, he would.

And a group of Dems, in a meeting Tuesday with chief sponsor John Kerry (D-Mass.) found themselves sharply split on the issue, according to Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who was there.

Doesn’t look too good. The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman alliance and their efforts to pass a climate bill seem to be falling apart. The only thing that could have been worse is if they’d had that press conference with heads of big oil companies in support last week as planned.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, “Personally I will have a very hard time ever voting for offshore drilling again.” Of course, he was already having some trouble voting for a bill that targeted coal.

Nonetheless, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was upbeat Tuesday, saying that perhaps the bill would get a boost from the oil spill. Calling the Gulf spill “just staggering,” he said maybe it could get Senators interested in doing something about energy.

I dunno. Doesn’t look to good to me.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Associated Press, CllimateWire, the Hill)

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010: If a wind turbine had exploded we wouldn't be facing this mess

(Photo of oil slick taken Saturday from Flickr and SkyTruth)

It’s ironic that approval for the Cape Wind Project came the same week at the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010.

It’s taken 9 years to get approval for the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, where the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) factor kept blocking it. The turbines, which will be 5-14 miles away from land, will reportedly look smaller than a quarter in your hand.

And if one of those falls over or explodes, all we’ll get is what comic Stephen Colbert deemed “a catastrophic wind spill.”

With the BP oil rig that self-destroyed in the Gulf 12 days ago, we’re getting inestimable damage to coastal regions of three or four states, as well as a major portion of the fishing industry and other wildlife. This rig was about 40 miles from shore and the leak is a mile deep, making repair very, very difficult. An oil slick, now the size of Puerto Rico, is spreading toward Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama – the same ill-fated states that had to endure Hurricane Katrina – and probably to the panhandle of Florida.

If the spill continues, as seems inevitable, it could travel down the west coast of Florida to the Keys and then be carried by the Gulf Stream up the east coast, tarring beaches and wildlife and ruining fishing and tourism.

Political fallout
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and Independent candidate for Senator) said this weekend there should be no new offshore drilling.

Christ, who flew over the slick and called it “frightening,” told Meet the Press’s David Gregory he would be for climate change legislation if he was in the Senate.

Which begs the question, what impact will the spill have on passing a climate bill? The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman bill includes expanded offshore drilling to placate Republicans, though some Democrats clearly didn’t like that part. Now they REALLY don’t like it.

As for the president, he ordered there be no new drilling leases unless there are new safety measures to avoid a repeat of the current calamity.

The legacy of Santa Barbara
Never underestimate the impact of a big oil spill on public opinion. The Santa Barbara spill of 1969 is credited with being the impetus for the environmental movement. Anti-drilling fever can spread as relentlessly as the oil slick itself.

California, though it still has 27 drilling platforms off its southern and central coast, has long had a moratorium on any new drilling there. A request to expand one drilling project, which already had opposition, will likely never get off the ground now.

You’ll note California was not included in President Obama’s loosening of offshore drilling restrictions. Nor is it in the climate bill.

And U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) told AP the Gulf spill “marks a turning point in our national discussion on new offshore oil drilling.”

People have a very long memory and strong feelings when their property is affected.

Oil versus wind
As we wait for something to stem the flow of the current disaster, which could take up to three months if all else fails and their only remedy is to drill a relief hole, let’s give a lot more thought to what would have happened if a wind turbine had exploded in the gulf. We’d hardly have noticed.

There are those who say energy independence depends on offshore drilling here. It’s either our oil or foreign oil. No it’s not. It’s either oil or clean sources like wind, solar and hydropower.

And, by the way, let’s think long and hard about a nuclear resurgnce. What if that had been a nuclear reactor?

(Sources include: NBC’s Meet the Press, Associated Press via Mother Nature Network, Christian Science Monitor, dailykos.com)

If Sen. Inhofe is for it, I’m against it; plus what’s the latest with Graham and Reid on climate vs. immigration reform?

Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, global warming denier, and his Republican colleague George Voinovich (Ohio) are touting a bill to slash 3 pollutants from power plants – if the climate bill fails, which they hope it does. Inhofe and Voinovich are the two ranking Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the face of it, who could be against cutting soot-producing sulfur dioxide 80%, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide 50% and mercury 90%. This 3-pollutant legislation was introduced last week by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Tom Carper (D-Dela.)

The problem is this bill does nothing about carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and nothing for renewable energy. It allows coal to continue being the energy of choice for power plants. Fortunately, the measure is unlikely to get legs, because Chair Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) committee has a majority of Democrats.

Voinovich also has a proposal to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, not only under the Clean Air Act, but also under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. He's covering all his bases.

On climate bill is Graham in or out?
So far he's out. After cancellation of a news conference to unveil their comprehensive climate bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) huddled Monday but made no statement when emerging and headed off in different directions, reporters on the scene noted, as if that indicated discord.

At issue – in case you’ve been in a bunker the past few days – is Graham’s refusal to play ball on the climate bill if immigration reform is on agenda this year too. (See Saturday's post below)

Over the weekend and Monday it looked like Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was going to push immigration reform first. Graham, who is also a player on immigration, said he didn’t want to be part of a political ploy to get Hispanic votes for Democrats in November (including beleaguered Sen. Reid.)

But Tuesday Reid seemed to be saying climate change would, in fact, come first. Graham, however, is still sitting this one out. He wants assurance immigration won’t come up at all this year. He's moving the goalposts, as Kate Sheppard said in Mother Jones .

As Kerry tries to keep up the good fight and Lieberman tries to make peace, the two are sending their bill to the EPA for the necessary analysis that could take 4-6 weeks, keeping the bill off the floor.

Meanwhile two of the more moderate Republicans, Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told E&E Daily Tuesday that they’d rather take up energy first, as did several other Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Immigration seems to be something the GOP has no taste for, at least not right now.

What if there’s no climate bill?
A couple of less comprehensive energy bills are waiting in the wings: the Collins-Cantwell CLEAR cap-and-dividend bill that would reduce emissions 20% by 2020. It has no support from labor, however, so its chances are not good.

There’s also the clean energy bill (S. 1462) that passed out of Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy Committee many months ago, which includes a rather small renewable energy standard. At this point that has been merged with Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, but presumably it could stand on its own.
Not a very good bill, though.

And of course the fallback is to just go with EPA regulations for large-source power plants, as well as letting states continue passing their own bills and regional cap-and-trade plans. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill’s most recent draft does not restrict the EPA and allows California and other states to regulate tailpipe emissions, something the House-passed Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) bill does not.

(Sources: Solveclimate.com, E&E Daily, govtrack, cantwellsenate.org, Mother Jones, Sierra Club)

Lindsey Graham says he’ll pull out of climate bill negotiations in Dems' sudden move to put immigration reform first

UPDATE 6:30 p.m CDT: Kerry has cancelled the Monday press conference, The Hill's E2Wire reports.

It looks like Lindsey Graham is going to rain on John Kerry’s parade

Sen. Graham (R-S.C.) said, in a letter obtained Saturday by CNN, that he is no longer negotiating on the climate bill and won’t appear at a news conference planned for Monday to unveil it. In dropping out, Graham takes the “bi-partisan” out of the so-called bi-partisan comprehensive climate bill, leaving Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) holding the bag.

A particularly cruel blow after they managed to get two or three major oil companies, GE, the Christian Coalition and other leaders to stand with them Monday in support of the bill.

Graham wrote to business and other leaders he’s been negotiating with that he is withdrawing because it appears immigration reform will now get first dibs on the Senate floor. Graham called it a “panicked … political ploy” by the Democrats, who are reacting to threats by Latinos to stay away from the polls in November. He says between that and the Supreme Court nomination, it’s hardly likely climate will be on the agenda before year’s end.

It’s easy to see how he would be peeved. The trio working on the bill has toiled long and hard to make it palatable to enough Senators to get 60 votes. But politics being what they are, I suspect there are a few other reasons he may be backing out:

• They simply don’t have the votes they need for the climate bill. Other Republicans aren’t coming forward and Graham doesn’t want to be hanging out there alone. He has already caught hell from constituents for even working with the enemy on climate – not to mention some blogger who said he’s gay and Dems are blackmailing him to get his support.

• He’s hoping his threat to back out will make Dem leadership put climate first because, as a good Republican, he’d like to see immigration reform delayed until after Election Day.

• He’s trying to protect his buddy Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) from having to deal with immigration as he tries to veer to the right before a tough primary, as some Democrats suggested to CNN.

Kerry, Graham and Lieberman met with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Thursday to talk about the timing of climate vs. immigration. Reid reportedly was non-committal but said he planned to bring both to the floor before August. As I noted in an earlier post, Reid is running behind in Nevada and definitely needs Latino votes if he is to have a chance at re-election.

Graham has also been working on the immigration issue, but said that bill is far from written.

(Sources: CNN , E&E News PM)

Will immigration (Nevada) politics get in way of climate bill?

(Photo of immigration rally in Chicago from Flickr and ProgressIL)

Rising pressure from Latinos to pass immigration reform is clearly on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) mind and those of others Senators running for re-election in states with a high Hispanic populations, such as Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who are at risk of losing to Republicans and badly need Latino votes.

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) last week raised the prospect of Latinos staying home on Election Day next November if a vote on reform, promised by President Obama during the campaign, doesn’t come this year.

So there’s a real chance, as Latino leaders get increasingly vocal, that Democratic leadership may put immigration ahead of climate on the Senate floor, if it looks more likely to get bi-partisan support.

Meanwhile, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continue to try to please all of the people all of the time (or at least 60). They are scheduled to introduce their comprehensive climate bill on Monday, but first have to figure out what to do about transportation. They had planned on a gas tax, but the president and others said that was a non-starter, so it’s off the table.

Moderates are suggesting it would be better to follow Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) proposal to go ahead with the clean energy part now and put off trying to put a price on carbon. But climate bill advocates say no, that if they can’t link the more popular clean-energy incentives to a price on carbon to reduce emissions, the latter is never going to happen.

Meanwhile Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have their own proposal out there for a cap-and-dividend plan that would return revenue to residents to help pay increased energy bills.

(Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Hill’s E2 Wire , The Washington Post, PlanetArk, E&E Daily)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Global warming update is ‘wake-up call’ to nations

(Photo of retreating Athabasca Glacier from Flickr and photographer Janet.Powell)



Climate is changing faster than forecast just two years ago by the authoritative IPCC, a new UN report revealed last week.

More CO2 is going into the atmosphere, glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are getting more acidic, and perennial droughts are more common, the UN Environment Programme update said.

Global temperatures could rise 8 degrees Fahrenheit (above pre-industrial levels), based on pledges by countries so far to cut greenhouse gas emissions – double the temperature scientists in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said would be catastrophic. Some think tipping points will come in a matter of years or decades, rather than in a century, as earlier forecast.

Degree of damage
After assessing the latest peer-reviewed science, the report said:
• CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at 3.5% a year this decade, compared with 1.1% a year in the 1990s.
• At least half of the next 10 years should be warmer than the previous record in 1998.
• Glaciers and sea ice have melted since 2000 at twice the rate of the 1980s and ‘90s.
• Greenland ice in 2007 thawed 60% above the record melt in 1998.
• An ice-free September in the Arctic Ocean could come in 2030, not 2100 as earlier predicted.
• West Antarctica ice loss increased 60% from 1996-2006 and the Antarctic Peninsula thaw was up 140% the same decade. Closing of the ozone hole over Antarctic will likely accelerate warming there.
• Melting land ice and thermal expansion could raise sea levels 6 feet by century’s end, rather than the earlier predicted 1.5 feet.
• Marine ecosystems will turn over 60% by 2050 because of extinctions and invasive species.

Impact on treaty talks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the new report a “wake-up call” for countries meeting in Copenhagen in December to try to reach accord on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Shying away from a major agreement in Copenhagen will probably be unforgivable, if you look back ... at this moment,” said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner.

Countries still disagree about the amount of GHG emissions industrialized and developing countries should cut and how much rich countries should help fund poor ones for adaptation and low-carbon economic development. Some European countries pledging 20% or more in cuts (below 1990 levels) by 2020 criticize the U.S., which is responsible for the most existing atmospheric CO2, for doing too little. The House-passed climate bill targets a 17% reduction (from 2005 levels) by 2020 (that’s about 4% below 1990) and the Senate is thought to be looking at reducing that number. That’s pretty pathetic.

As UNEP report contributor Robert Correl put it: Emissions are accelerating. “We’re not going in the right direction.”


To download the report go to www.unep.org/compendium2009

(Sources: Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, UNEP.com, AP.)