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

Earlier this week, representatives of four presidential candidates (two Democrat, two Republican) appeared for an issues briefing at the National Press Club on energy policy — videos here (warning, they are kind of boring). The short version is that the politically polite rhetoric managed to smooth over the sticky policy points: details of a cap and trade program and nuclear energy policy.

Congressman David E. Bonior spoke on behalf of John Edwards, Senator Tom Daschle on behalf of Barack Obama, former Secretary of Energy John S. Herrington for Rudy Giuliani, and Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin for John McCain.

The representatives loved to point out that they agreed on two things: leadership and urgency. The discussion was diplomatic and strategically ambiguous, as they did not all agree which required leadership and urgency – energy policy or climate policy.

Secretary Herrington was the outlier whose priority was clearly energy policy (and it’s no wonder, given his background). Only Herrington expressed hesitation regarding a cap and trade program, while the others sparred more over details of a plan. Rather than discuss climate, Herrington repeatedly revolve his comments around Giuliani’s two energy priorities: investing in nuclear energy for our electricity sector and using natural gas to fuel our vehicle fleet. [JR -- a truly pointless idea since 1) natural gas can be used twice as efficiently displacing coal power and 2) if natural gas became a major transport fuel, we'd have to import it, so it doesn't solve our energy security problem.]

Since Giuliani is the Republican front-runner, this lame energy/climate policy is quite discouraging.

(more…)

The climate bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) is NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread, but with improvements it wouldn’t be bad. And right now, it looks like it is the only bill with the mojo to make it through the Senate Environment and Public Works committee.

E&E Daily (subs. req’d) report the bill is gaining key support:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) added momentum to global warming legislation yesterday when he announced his support for a bill that proposes to set mandatory caps on heat-trapping emissions.

“It’s not too far to the left, not too far to the right,” Baucus said [of the Lieberman-Warner bill]. “It’s balanced, therefore it’s most likely to succeed.”

Baucus represents a key swing vote on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and his support moves Lieberman and Warner within sight of the one-vote majority necessary to pass their bill, S. 2191, “America’s Climate Security Act,” during a subcommittee markup next Thursday.

The rest of the story, with more details on the likely prospects for votes in EPW and comments by industry, follows:

(more…)

I am no expert on the intricacies of the farm bill, but it will have a huge impact on climate. Fortunately the Center for American Progress does have an expert, Jake Caldwell. He has written a great piece, “A New Farm Bill: The Work is Not Finished.” I will excerpt the energy-related parts:

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the Senate Agriculture and Senate Finance Committees have done a commendable job so far preparing for the next generation of cellulosic biofuels–liquid fuels sustainably produced from energy crops such as switchgrass and agricultural wastes such as corn stalks and rice hulls. The Senate bill increases funding for farmers growing new biofuel feedstocks in a sustainable manner. It also provides significant provisions for increasing research and development by bolstering financial incentives for new cellulosic biofuel refineries and increasing funding that would allow biorefineries to purchase and transport diverse biofuel feedstocks.

The Energy Title of the Senate Farm Bill also provides for the use of transparent certification and labeling criteria to encourage sustainable production of biofuels through the innovative “Voluntary Renewable Biomass Certification Program.” An investment in advanced biofuels must be accompanied by enhanced environmental safeguards and incentives for biofuel producers to conserve land and water resources, maximize lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions and the low carbon characteristics of fuels, and grow energy crops in a sustainable manner.

What is the farm bill missing, energy-wise?

(more…)

The shameless attempt to deny the American public the truth about climate impacts continue. As the AP reports:

Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.

Instead, Gerberding’s prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease….

A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding’s draft “was eviscerated.”

Wouldn’t want the public knowing the health impacts of its do-nothing climate policy.

If you’d like to see the original testimony, here it is, courtesy of Climate Science Watch. Compare that to the eviscerated version here. Stunning and petty at the same time.

Must our long national climate nightmare continue for another 15 months?

Amusing, if harsh….

In an op-ed titled, “Save the Planet: Vote Smart,” N.Y. Times columnist Tom Friedman makes a point that is a central theme of this blog:

People often ask: I want to get greener, what should I do? New light bulbs? A hybrid? A solar roof? Well, all of those things are helpful. But actually, the greenest thing you can do is this: Choose the right leaders. It is so much more important to change your leaders than change your light bulbs.

Why? Because leaders write the rules, set the standards and offer the tax incentives that drive market behavior across a whole city, state or country. Whatever any of us does individually matters a tiny bit. But when leaders change the rules, you get scale change across the whole marketplace. And the energy-climate challenge we face today is a huge scale problem. Without scale, all you have is a green hobby.

Have no illusions, everything George Bush wouldn’t do on energy after 9/11 — his resisting improved mileage for cars and actually trying to weaken air-conditioner standards – swamped any good works you did….

So if you want to be a green college kid or a green adult, don’t fool yourself: You can change lights. You can change cars. But if you don’t change leaders, your actions are nothing more than an expression of, as Dick Cheney would say, “personal virtue.”

Well, they dropped a bundle to get a quarter-page “Clean Power” ad in the Washington Post (page A21 today) so the least I can do is give them a shout out on Climate Progress.

CLEAN is a “clean power and coalfield state grassroots organization” circulating a comprehensive national “call to action” on energy policy that includes:

• a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired power plants
• increased investments and tax credits for stepped-up renewable energy production
• greater emphasis on energy efficiency in all new construction
• a sharp jump in federal mile per gallon (MPG) fuel efficiency standards
• changes in personal energy consumption patterns.

And a lot more — you can read the long version of the call to action text here.

Glad to see more groups joining the fight to conserve a livable climate.