You think the Clean Air Act cannot be used to achieve meaningful GHG reductions in a reasonable amount of time relative to ACES. But it seems like some of the best litigators working on climate issues disagree. Look for example at the comments of groups like the National Resources Defense Council or the Center for Biological Diversity on the endangerment finding or on Bush’s previous Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Or check out the writings of distinguished Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling. Those folks seem to think the CAA can play an important role in achieving meaningful reductions soon. They explain exactly how it would work, CAA section by section. Mr. Romm, you simply say it can’t work without any rationale.

Likewise, without rationale, you claim that the world will have more respect for ACES than for an Obama Administration using every part of the CAA aggressively to attack GHG emissions. That makes no sense at all. The world already has no respect for ACES. It proves we are not serious as a nation, as does Obama’s refusal to use the CAA to its fullest potential. If, on the other hand, Obama’s EPA were right now proposing command and control regulations that seriously stung industry, the world would receive a much different message.

Hey, I was glad, once the vote came up, that ACES passed the House. If the Senate were voting on ACES in current form, I’d root for a win. But I refuse to pretend like the only option for the Obama Administration is to work for ACES passage in the Senate. There are levers of power sitting idle so that Obama can play it safe politically.

I don’t think this is one of your better pieces of writing.

[snip]

[JR: I don't consider your critique to be especially responsive to what I (and Hansen) actually wrote. But the reason for deleting it is that I have been way too patient with your fake name and fake email address for a long time, even though it is in direct contradiction to the Terms of Service here (and most other places). If you want to criticize my analysis, that's perfectly fine, but then have the courtesy to finally of identifying yourself like the overwhelming majority of people here.]

We won’t solve the combined climate, energy, and economic challenges by passing legislation that mostly just tells businesses they need to fix the problem or face penalties. Scientific innovation was the primary driver of the improved standard of living over the past 70 years, and that is still our best hope. Unfortunately, even with the (meager) expected funding level of ARPA-E, under 2% of the total renewables energy budget goes to support of investigator-initiated research (and you’ve been just as irrationally against ARPA-E as you are now for a bureaucratic nightmare). How can a person of numbers and science not understand that radically increased support of innovative research (not a rush to premature deployment) will be required to solve these problems?

This is a section of W-M describing how domestic offsets work. IMHO the rules are so complex and qualitative that the intended purpose of the act will be lost in a never ending process of litigation.

8 (b) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.—
9 (1) EXISTING OFFSET PRACTICES.—In estab10
lishing the methodologies under subsection (a), the
11 Secretary shall give due consideration to methodolo12
gies for offset practices existing as of the date of the
13 enactment of this title.
14 (2) CERTAIN FACTORS.—As part of the meth15
odologies established under subsection (a), the Sec16
retary shall establish a formula that takes into ac17
count the components of the practice, the character18
istics of the land on which the practice is applied,
19 the crop produced, and such other factors as deter20
mined appropriate by the Secretary.
21 (c) ACCOUNTING FOR REVERSALS.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub23
section (d) with respect to issuance of a term offset
24 credit, for each type of practice listed under section
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01399 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1400
HR 2454 PCS
1 503, the Secretary shall establish requirements to
2 account for and address reversals, including—
3 (A) a requirement to report any reversal
4 with respect to an offset practice for which off5
set credits have been issued under this title;
6 (B) provisions to require emission allow7
ances or offset credits to be held in amounts to
8 fully compensate for greenhouse gas emissions
9 attributable to reversals, and to assign responsi10
bility for holding such emission allowances; and
11 (C) any other provisions that the Secretary
12 determines to be necessary to account for and
13 address reversals.
14 (2) MECHANISMS.—
15 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall
16 prescribe mechanisms to ensure that any se17
questration of greenhouse gases, with respect to
18 which an offset credit is issued under this title,
19 results in a permanent net increase in seques20
tration of greenhouse gases, and that full ac21
count is taken of any actual or potential rever22
sal of such sequestration, with an adequate
23 margin of safety.
24 (B) SPECIFIC MECHANISMS.—The Sec25
retary shall make available one or more of the
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01400 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1401
HR 2454 PCS
1 following mechanisms to meet the requirements
2 of this paragraph:
3 (i) An offsets reserve, pursuant to
4 paragraph (3).
5 (ii) Insurance that provides for pur6
chase and provision to the Secretary for
7 retirement of a quantity of offset credits or
8 emission allowances equal in number to the
9 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents of green10
house gas emissions released due to rever11
sal.
12 (iii) Another mechanism if the Sec13
retary determines it is necessary to satisfy
14 the requirements of this title, taking into
15 account whether the reversal was inten16
tional or unintentional.
17 (3) OFFSETS RESERVE.—
18 (A) IN GENERAL.—An offsets reserve re19
ferred to in paragraph (2)(B)(i) is a program
20 under which, before issuance of offset credits
21 under this title, the Secretary shall—
22 (i) subtract and reserve from the
23 quantity to be issued a quantity of offset
24 credits based on the risk of reversal;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01401 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1402
HR 2454 PCS
1 (ii) hold those reserved offset credits
2 in the offsets reserve; and
3 (iii) register the holding of the re4
served offset credits in an offset registry.
5 (B) PRACTICE REVERSAL.—
6 (i) IN GENERAL.—If a reversal has
7 occurred with respect to an offset practice
8 within an offset project, for which offset
9 credits are reserved under this paragraph,
10 the Secretary shall retire offset credits
11 from the offsets reserve to fully account
12 for the tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
13 that are no longer sequestered.
14 (ii) INTENTIONAL REVERSALS.—If the
15 Secretary determines that a reversal was
16 intentional, the offset practice developer
17 for the relevant offset practice shall place
18 into the offsets reserve a quantity of offset
19 credits, or combination of offset credits
20 and emission allowances, equal in number
21 to the number of reserve offset credits that
22 were retired pursuant to clause (i).
23 (iii) UNINTENTIONAL REVERSALS.—If
24 the Secretary determines that a reversal
25 was unintentional, the offset project devel-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01402 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1403
HR 2454 PCS
1 oper for the relevant offset project shall
2 place into the offsets reserve a quantity of
3 offset credits, or combination of offset
4 credits and emission allowances, equal in
5 number to half the number of offset credits
6 that were reserved for that offset project,
7 or half the number of reserve offset credits
8 that were canceled due to the reversal pur9
suant to clause (i), whichever is less, ex10
cept that the Secretary may lower this
11 amount based on undue hardship in the
12 event of a catastrophic occurrence.
13 (C) USE OF RESERVED OFFSET CRED14
ITS.—Offset credits placed into the offsets re15
serve under this paragraph may not be used to
16 comply with section 722 of the Clean Air Act.
17 (d) TERM OFFSET CREDITS.—
18 (1) APPLICABILITY.—With respect to a practice
19 listed under section 503 that sequesters greenhouse
20 gases and has a crediting period of no more than 5
21 years, the Secretary may address reversals pursuant
22 to this subsection in lieu of permanently accounting
23 for reversals pursuant to subsection (c).
24 (2) ACCOUNTING FOR REVERSALS.—For such
25 practices or projects implementing such practices,
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01403 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1404
HR 2454 PCS
1 the Secretary shall require only reversals that occur
2 during the crediting period to be accounted for and
3 addressed pursuant to subsection (c).
4 (3) CREDITS ISSUED.—For practices or projects
5 regulated pursuant to paragraph (2), the Secretary
6 shall issue under section 507 a term offset credit, in
7 lieu of an offset credit, for each ton of carbon diox8
ide equivalent that has been sequestered.
9 (e) CREDITING PERIODS.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—For each offset practice type
11 within an offset project, the Secretary shall specify
12 a crediting period, and establish provisions for re13
enrollment for a subsequent crediting period, in ac14
cordance with this subsection.
15 (2) DURATION.—The crediting period shall
16 have a term of up to—
17 (A) 5 years for agricultural sequestration
18 practices;
19 (B) 20 years for forestry sequestration
20 practices; and
21 (C) 10 years for other practice types that
22 reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions or se23
quester greenhouse gases.
24 (3) ELIGIBILITY.—An offset practice, within an
25 offset project, shall—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01404 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1405
HR 2454 PCS
1 (A) be eligible to generate offset credits
2 under this title only during the crediting period
3 of the offset practice; and
4 (B) remain eligible to generate offset cred5
its, only during the crediting period, subject to
6 the methodologies and practice type eligibility
7 list that applied as of the date of the project
8 approval.
9 (4) REENROLLMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT CRED10
ITING PERIOD.—
11 (A) REENROLLMENT AUTHORIZED; TIME
12 FOR REENROLLMENT.—An offset project devel13
oper may reenroll for a subsequent crediting pe14
riod, to commence after termination of the cur15
rent crediting period, subject to the methodolo16
gies and practice type eligibility list in effect at
17 the time of reenrollment. Reenrollment may not
18 occur more than 18 months before the end of
19 the crediting period then in effect.
20 (B) LIMITATION.—The Secretary may
21 limit the number of subsequent crediting peri22
ods available for a particular practice type.
23 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY.—In establishing
24 the requirements under this section, the Secretary shall
25 apply conservative assumptions or methods to ensure the
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:34 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 01405 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2454.PCS H2454 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1406
HR 2454 PCS
1 environmental integrity of the cap established under sec2
tion 703 of the Clean Air Act is not compromised.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/ getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf

In my view W-M is simply approaching the whole problem of CO2 from the wrong angle. To take one minor example buried deep in the text towards the end, why even open up the “domestic offsets” can of worms? Coal companies can make some token effort towards replanting areas damaged by beetle infestation so that they can burn as much coal as ever.

SEC. 502. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFSET CREDIT PROGRAM 16 FROM DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SOURCES.

How carbon moves around in the primary carbon cycle is neither here nor there. What matters is how much new carbon we are transferring from the secondary cycle (i.e. coal, oil and gas) into the primary cycle. The rules for this would not have filled even 1 page, never mind 1400. This is where Hansen is coming from.

Here’s a partial transcript from the Bloomberg Suveillance podcast aired not long ago which was entitled “Gallagher Says Fed Won’t Adjust Interest Rates This Year”. Although Tom Gallagher, head of policy research at I.S.I. is a guy not normally known for his climate debate insight, I thought his opinion was interesting, and worth sharing here regarding the current Congress:

Interviewer: “Do they [Congress} have too much on their plate?”

Gallagher: “I often think it is rare that if something doesn’t get done its not because there’s too much on the plate, its because what’s there isn’t appetizing. Especially remember that we’re in the first half of the first year of a two year Congress so there’s plenty of time left to get things done. If they don’t get health care done, or climate change done, or financial re-regulation, its not really because they ran out of time, its they couldn’t get a consensus on what they want to do. So I’d really look at the substance of the issues rather than how much is on their plate.”

Interviewer: “What gets done and what doesn’t?”

Gallagher: “I think the Democrats want a good outcome on health care… and I think they’d settle for a good start on climate change, and I don’t have a good feel for what gets done at all on financial… On health care obviously the Democrats have long experience with this… When they invest political capital its going to be on health care…. deadlines are rarely about when things need to be done by, they are just trying to create incentives for the committee on each stage of the process in order for it to work…”

“On climate change, although the House is going to act this week… but boy I think it is going to be really hard to get a cap and trade bill through the Senate. So my guess is they have a Plan B there where they do more subsidies for more alternative energy and they do more subsidies for renewable fuel standards that sort of thing. But I think cap and trade is going to be hard to get through the Senate.”

And in the end, because it takes two thirds of the Senate, not 60 Senators, to ratify any treaty, what is going to be able to be signed at Copenhagen that the Senate will ratify?

But I certainly agree with Joe that “putting”, or trying to put “the nation on the path towards sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions” should not be stopped.

I notice that you have now changed the language in your “UPDATE” at the top of the article to “helping the deniers and delayers” rather than “giving aid and comfort to the deniers and delayers” which is what it said yesterday.

[JR: Because it was not an accurate representation of what I had written.]

The question is very simple. Will this bill ENSURE that the global temperatures won’t go up by more than 2 degrees ? If not, it is not that useful – it may be better than nothing – but that shouldn’t be the objective.

[JR: I'm afraid that "very simple" question is also meaningless -- since nothing of the United States does by itself can ensure that global temperatures won't go up by more than 2°. Again, the 1987 Montréal protocol would not have stopped the ozone layer from being destroyed. The question is not whether this one bill will solve the worlds problems by itself, which is quite impossible. The question is whether this bill is consistent with stopping global temperatures from going up much more than 2°. I have previously blogged on that and the answer is yes.]

The US domestic climate action may be the best that can be done right now, but it is a fact that the entire Obama policy, domestic and international, rests on the fallacy that it will prove to be acceptable to our descendants that in every year from now until 2050 the forces driving global warming were allowed to increase.

Obama’s G8 position is ludicrous. If you dig out population and emission figures and do the math, you find that under the G8 plan each G8 citizen will have the right to emit 2.5 tonnes of CO2 in 2050 whereas each non-G8 citizen will be restricted to 1.45 tonnes.

Here is what Ghosh, India’s former environment secretary, said as the 2007 G8 meetings approached:

“This is our challenge to the West. ‘You do the best you can, and we’ll match it’. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided.”

And all this leaves aside whether there is any planetary capacity to absorb CO2 left. That is Hansen’s point. The G8 and the developing world are fighting over who is going to get the right to emit what, when no further emissions are advisable. In Hansen’s world, a reasonable bare minimum domestic US and international G8 position would be that the US and the G8 will aim for negative emissions (taking net C02 out of the air) as quickly as possible.

I’ve read Romm saying Hansen’s assertion that there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere already is “only one study”. Is Romm in denial, or is Hansen off his head? We should try to clear this up. Hansen is claiming “the relevant experts” share his fears: “The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences”. (from http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ mailings/ 20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf ) Romm should say Hansen is lying about this, or stop saying Hansen’s position is based on “only one study”?

[JR: This is not an accurate representation of my many lengthy posts on Hansen's work.]

The 2009 Joint Science Academies G8+5 statement contains a warning: “Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate change”. I don’t see how you get a group of groups of the world’s most respected scientists issuing a warning like that unless the fear is that too much greenhouse gas is present in the atmosphere already.

So I think Hansen is on sound ground when he criticizes US domestic climate policy and the US and G8 international position, however hard it is for those who are doing their best to do what is politically possible to hear his critique, and even though Hansen may not be finding the best way to express his position.

We all owe Hansen a lot. We should be encouraging him to find a more powerful and better way to state his position, not roasting him for it.

[JR: Many of us have tried. He has decided to put his reputation on the line pushing myths and attacking the only realistic chance we have of putting the nation (and the world) on the path towards sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.]