Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

There’s something very wrong with the movies–and the air–in Los Angeles, according to the Sundance Institution.

Robert Redford’s Utah resort is famous as the site of the Sundance Film Festival, but last week it was host to a fresh, independent voice: the second Sundance Summit of mayors. The consensus among summiteers: If the federal government won’t step up and address climate change, local officials will.

Among those in attendance were co-founder and former Senator Gary Hart, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, nearly 30 mayors and representatives of other concerned groups, all gathered to discuss climate change, energy, and sustainability.

Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys are at it again. Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports:

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin … said the nation would push the European Union to create a carbon tax on non-Kyoto nations. In total, two industrialized countries chose not to ratify Kyoto: Australia and the United States.

Reaction from Australia was swift and strong:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard today … called the plan ridiculous. “That is a thoroughly silly proposal and utterly out of touch with reality,” Howard said.

Reaction from us was swift but bland:

At the U.N. climate change conference in Kenya, U.S. officials slammed the proposal. “We would not see in this case this kind of approach as being the most constructive one or the most effective one,” said Paula Dobriansky, the U.S. undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs.

Hmm. Does this mean Dobriansky might consider the proposal the second most effective one–second, say, to the U.S. proposal to refuse to do anything whatsoever?

Seriously, though, while the tax proposal seems unlikely to go anywhere, sooner or later–probably sooner given the accelerated rate of climate change we are witnessing–nations that refuse to take action on climate will be seen as rogues and punished accordingly by the world community. We must join the fight soon, lest some French satricial TV show label us “Freedom-Fry-eating polar-bear killers.”

Converting coal to a liquid fuel like diesel is a bad idea for the climate, as previously noted. The good news is that the new Congress will be far more skeptical of the idea than the old one.

“Democrats’ Climate Test Could Hamper DOD Push For Alternative Fuels,” is how Energy Washington (subs. req’d) put it:

The Defense Department’s push to find alternative fuel sources could face a tough hurdle if the new Democratic leadership in Congress closely scrutinizes the climate impacts of controversial technologies, such as coal-based Fischer-Tropsch refining, that DOD is considering, observers say.

The article goes on to explain:

(more…)

“Rice Moves Energy Concerns To Top Of U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda” is the headline in Energy Washington (subs. req’d) today. The article explains:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided to move energy issues to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, establishing a new global energy coordinator post and changing the scope of two existing undersecretary positions so they can engage directly on energy issues, according to congressional and diplomatic sources. The energy coordinator would act to bolster U.S. policy toward energy consumer and producer nations while establishing greater inter-agency cooperation, according to these sources.

Energy certainly warrants more focus by the State Department, but what we really needed was a headline reading “Rice Moves Climate Concerns To Top Of U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda.”

Unfortunately, that seems unlikely in this administration, so such a move would probably just get her fired, which I guess would make her fried Rice.

After writing an entire column on oil without mentioning global warming, Samuelson writes an entire column on the supposedly high cost of tackling global warming without mentioning key solutions, such as energy efficiency.

Samuelson attacks the UK’s Stern Report in a column titled “Greenhouse Guessing.” He claims

With today’s technologies, we don’t know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways. The world’s 1,700 or so coal-fired power plants — big emitters of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas — are a cheap source of electricity.

But for Samuelson, “today’s technologies” to replace coal consist entirely of solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. While solar and wind are certainly more viable than he thinks, the egregious mistake is to ignore the most cost-effective strategy for reducing emissions — simply using energy more efficiently.

This is a common mistake, as we have seen. In fact, many major studies, including one by five national laboratories, have shown that for we could achieve significant carbon reductions without raising the nation’s total energy bill. Those studies include an aggressive set of policies to promote energy-efficient technologies that can pay for their extra cost through reduced energy bills.

Samuelson says, “It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming.” His piece does little to improve the dialogue.

What do the election results mean for climate policy?

Congressional Quarterly (subs. req’d) reported earlier this week:

If Democrats take Congress, the energy industry can expect an effort to repeal tax breaks, a renewed debate on climate change, and a push for policies that promote alternative fuel sources and crack down on price-gouging, say top Democrats on the House and Senate energy committees.

“Renewed debate” is a scary phrase, since debate won’t solve the dangerous threat posed by unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases. The article quotes top House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrat John D. Dingell of Michigan:

Dingell also said he expected to hold hearings on climate change, an issue with an impact on auto emissions. But any action would likely have to come in the form of international cooperation, he said.

We need more than hearings and debate. Certainly the ultimate solution to the climate problem requires international cooperation. But the other major industrialized countries have already begun taking action under the Kyoto protocol. The U.S. needs to take action NOW because we are the richest and most polluting country–and have no credibility with the rest of the world when it comes to pledging action internationally.

Even if the Bush Administration vetoes any serious climate legislation and continues its policy of inaction, Congressional action will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we are ready to join the fight once we have a new president in 2009.

While the mid-term elections get all the media coverage in this country, much of the rest of the world is focused on the major international climate conference going on in Nairobi, Kenya.

Sadly, the Bush Administration continues its “stay the course” policy of refusing to take action to prevent catastrophic global warming:

“I certainly got no indication (from the Bush administration) that there’s any change in our position, nor is there likely to be during this presidency,” U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson said.

While Climate Progress would love to have attended, you can get daily blogging from Nairobi from the World Resources Institute blog. They are not only providing daily updates, but have excellent background information on exactly what this conference is and on what its agenda is (and should be).