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

The climate train is leaving the station.  It is becoming increasingly likely Congress will pass a comprehensive energy bill that includes a shrinking cap and a rising carbon price (with a price collar).   Key swing Senators are moving away from obstructionism toward a bipartisan deal.  Those who stand on the sidelines not only risk ending up on the wrong side of history for this momentous bill, but they risk the more tangible benefits of sitting at the negotiating table.

The Washington Times reported today:

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, praised the climate change legislation outlined Sunday by GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democratic Sen. John Kerry…..

Her remarks signal the potential for a major turn in the climate change debate in Congress. She has been a leading opponent of the type of legislation that has been moving forward so far…..

“I’m hopeful their column will mark a shift in the climate debate,” Murkowski said at a hearing by the energy committee. “Instead of cutting emissions at any cost, we should be working on a policy that incorporates the best ideas of both parties, a policy that accounts for our near-term energy needs, limits costs and is flexible enough to work under different economic circumstances,” she said.

In the op-ed, the two Senators asserted they have developed “a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.” The framework includes, among other things, more offshore drilling and incentives for nuclear power, neither of which should be deal breakers for progressives as I have explained.

Murkowski’s office has now put out a press release reiterating her statements:

(more…)

As predicted, far-right-wingers are going after Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for his breakthrough partnership with John Kerry (D-MA).  The two Senators asserted Sunday that they have developed “a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.”

Some are even labeling Graham a RINO (Republican In Name Only), even though the American Conservative Union rates him an ACU “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!  Think Progress and Wonk Room have the gory details, which I excerpt below.

After voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and expressing a willingness to build a compromise approach to clean energy legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appears to be the new target of tea party activists. At a Graham town hall in Greenville yesterday, activist Harry Kimball of “RINO HUNT” protested by constructing a display that depicted Graham, as well as moderates like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), being flushed down a toilet:

KIMBALL: This is for every RINO who has failed to represent us. [...] [the toilet represents] flushing them, flushing them.

One attendee of the event asked the senator, “when are you going to announce that you are switching parties?” The question drew loud applause from the crowd. Graham defended himself, and denounced the influence of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on the Republican party:

(more…)

Those quotes are from a recent op-ed, “The Congress, Not the EPA, Must Take the Lead to Address Climate Challenges,” by the Senator from the state that is the most ravaged by climate change today.  The piece is mainly a defense of her myopic amendment to stall EPA action:

Congress is currently engaged in one of the most complex policy debates of our time – how best to mitigate climate change without harming the economy….

Congressional action is almost unanimously preferred, but right now Congress is a long ways from completing legislation that can deliver meaningful greenhouse gas reductions without damaging the economy.

Understanding this, I recently sought to give Congress additional time to develop sensible legislation. I did this by offering an amendment to call a temporary, one-year “timeout” on the EPA’s imminent regulations….

We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions….

You can be assured that I will continue to work in good faith with all who want to address climate change….

We need an effective policy that will endure, and that’s why Congress, not the EPA, must take the lead.

Huh.  The breakthrough Graham-Kerry op-ed says we aren’t a “long ways” away from a bill:

(more…)

On Sunday, I discussed the breakthrough Senate climate partnership: Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) have joined forces, asserting they are “convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.”

Their bipartisan partnership now makes a comprehensive climate and energy bill likely.  What’s fascinating politically is that while some might try to label him a maverick, like his friend John McCain (R-AZ), Graham has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 89.79.  Graham is an ACU “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!

So how did a hardcore conservative like Graham come to his game-changing climate and energy views?  E&E News (subs. req’d) has a good profile, which I excerpt below:

(more…)

Email link for GOP Sen. Graham’s DC Office – Ph. 202-224-5972 – Graham’s SC office 864-250-1417 — SC GOP HQ Ph. 803-988-8440

Yes, sometimes I visit the website of the Swift boat smearer to see the latest in denier talking points and to be amused by his latest self-acknowledged version of performance art and to save you all the trouble!

I tend to ignore what Morano writes because:

1. He just makes stuff up (see Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Morano and Inhofe, CO2 — but not the sun — “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850).
2. The latest web analysis suggests right-wing denial websites like his are only talking to themselves.

But this time I found two tidbits that need responding too.  First, he published an outright lie about me (with my photo!) that I will address shortly.  Second, he attacked Linsday Graham who, as I reported, has reached across the aisle to John Kerry (D-MA) to achieve a bipartisan solution to our climate and energy problems, as I blogged on this morning here.

(more…)

Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)

That is the stunning banner headline from a must-read op-ed in today’s NY Times by two unlikely legislative partners — Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina, an ally of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and John Kerry, Democratic senator from Massachusetts, lead author of the recently introduced Kerry-Boxer bill aka the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.”

The two Senators have a powerful message to the naysayers — and the status quo media which has prematurely written the obituary for both domestic and international climate action:

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success….

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

The odds of a Senate climate bill just jumped through the roof. Now the Senate needs to get off its butt and get this done.

If the deal they describe can be done, and I’m confident it can be, that would probably mean at least four GOP votes in the Senate — Graham, McCain, and Maine’s Snowe and Collins.  But I suspect this deal brings within reach other gettable “Rs,” like Lugar of Indiana and Voinovich of Ohio and maybe even Lisa “the fiddler” Murkowski (R-AK), if she understands, as Graham and Kerry do, that the best way to avoid the problems inherent in EPA regulation is to pass this bill:

(more…)

Republican Rep. Michael Castle announced at a press conference today in Wilmington, Del., that he will seek the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Vice President Biden last year — instantly boosting the GOP’s chances of capturing a Democratic seat.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which handicaps congressional races, called Castle’s candidacy a “major recruiting victory” for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Cook moved the race from the “solid Democratic” column to the “toss up” column.

This breaking news from USA Today raises two interesting questions:  First, will RNC Chair Michael Steele denounce him, too?  Second, will Castle continue to advocate for clean energy jobs and climate legislation, or will he try to walk away from his vote like Mark Kirk has in Illinois?

After all, the climate vote is increasingly becoming a litmus test for conservatives (see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 3: RNC Chair Steele withdraws support for Rep. Kirk over his vote on climate and clean energy bill“).

Some hypocrisy on the issue is already clear:

(more…)

Since failing to vote gets more attention than wanting to suspend California’s climate and clean energy laws, a lot of people probably know this story:

Meg Whitman, the fourth richest woman in California, thinks she should be governor, presumably because the three richer women are busy. She freely admits that this idea just popped into her head about 18 months ago. Before then she wasn’t a member of any party and hadn’t even voted very often. That’s the kind of delightful English-style eccentric she is. She might as well have decided she was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.

Then a funny thing happened to another part of her brain, the area where memories are stored: It became less and less clear if she had voted before 2002 — she claimed she had — or if she had ever registered as a Republican in another state — another claim she’d made and frequently repeated.

No one had seen any evidence to support either assertion. A reporter asked Multipersonality Meg if she could help.

“Go find it,” Meg snapped.

For what happened next, read the rest of the HuffPost piece, “An Open Letter from Meg Whitman About Voting.”

Less well known is her lack of civic responsibility when it comes to all Californians — and their children and grandchildren. As fellow candidate for Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, explained in a September 24th piece:

strong>Meg Whitman penned an op-ed last week stating she’d suspend California’s landmark climate-change legislation, AB32, on her first day if elected governor. This is backwards thinking, and I disagree.

Fellow Californian and Nobel Prize winner Energy Secretary Steven Chu has already explained what could happens to the state if we fail to adopt aggressive emissions reduction strategies (many of which have been pioneered by the state):  “Wake up,” America, “we’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.”
(more…)

The brain waves of the American right continue to be erratic, when they are not flat-lining.

What’s more surprising — that a leading conservative scholar would admit that his entire movement may be brain dead or that he thinks the movement’s best hope is … wait for it … Glenn Beck.

Steven F. Hayward is “the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute” who has, his bio notes, “written biographies of Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and of Winston Churchill.”

I think it has been obvious for a while that the conservative movement should be renamed the conservative stagnation:

• Gingrich sums up conservative ethos: “I am not a citizen of the world! I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous”
• Joe Klein on the GOP: “How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists?”
• House GOP leader Boehner on ABC: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical.”

But who would have imagined a leading conservative intellectual like Hayward would make the following damning admission in his concluding paragraph:

(more…)

In a bizarre pop-culture flip-flop, Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute has compared the mild-mannered EPA administrator to Dirty Harry:

You can just see Jackson standing there with a .44 magnum in her hand, and a steely glint in her eye, telling industry “You’ve got to ask yourself one question, ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

Seriously!

Let me get this straight, the right-wing is now saying it’s bad to be like Clint, the quintessential tough guy hero lionized by conservatives because he’ll do whatever is needed to save human life?  That means Green is directly equating U.S. industry with the psychopathic serial killer and criminals that Clint fights in the iconic 1971 movie.

Well, logic was never a priority of Denier-Industrial-Complex Kooks (DICKs) like Green, who regularly spouts nonsense like, “We’re back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….  No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly” — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).

In fact, Green’s analogy makes no sense whatsoever since Jackson is simply obeying the command of the highest court in the land to regulate carbon pollution (see here).  Green entirely omits the fact that in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were pollutants and that the EPA would have to regulate them if they were found to endanger public health and welfare.

So the only part of the analogy that makes sense is that deniers and delayers like Green oppose the rule of law — while Jackson is trying to enforce it.

Ironically, in its zealous quest to kill climate action, AEI has done another flip-flop.  Jackson proposes to start regulating only  “large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year.”  Jackson explained, “This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources – those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources.”  She told the Governors Climate Summit in Los Angeles, “we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy,” adding, “The corner coffee shop is not a meaningful place to look for carbon reductions.”

But Green doesn’t believe in common sense — he urges big polluters to sue to make sure small businesses and farmers are regulated also:

(more…)

Yesterday, EPA announced a new rule to require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when “constructed or significantly modified.”

Today, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittee, released a statement:

“The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that greenhouse gas emissions pose a real threat to public health and safety, and has proposed a carefully targeted plan to regulate large industrial and commercial facilities under the Clean Air Act.

I fully support EPA’s actions to require that the nation’s largest stationary emitters, responsible for roughly 70 percent of America’s carbon footprint, take appropriate steps to contain these harmful emissions and improve energy efficiency.

Those who recognize that the Earth is in jeopardy, that global warming is real and that the climate is warming more quickly than anticipated, understand the urgent need to take action. We cannot lose time.

Hopefully, this will encourage the Senate to pass a comprehensive climate change bill quickly. If it does not, the Obama Administration should be commended for having the courage to protect our environment and our Earth.”

Hear!  Hear!

When we last left GOP quitter-in-chief Sarah Palin she had written a falsehood-filled piece attacking climate action and clean energy for, who else, the Washington Post.  Then Senators Boxer and Kerry debunked her piece, pointing out “The governor’s new refrain against global warming action reminds us of every naysayer who has spoken out against progress in cleaning up pollution.”

At the same time, Newt Gingrich called her a conservative leader on energy issues, asserting “Her knowledge of the energy issue is very real.”  In fact, Palin is so ignorant of energy, so practiced at repeating falsehoods, that during last year’s presidential campaign, the Washington Post itself gave her its highest (which is to say lowest) rating of “Four Pinocchios” for continuing to “to peddle bogus [energy] statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers.”

Now Think Progress reports Palin “has signed on with the Washington Speakers Bureau, hoping to cash in on her fame. While Palin did do one speech — to mixed reviews — in Asia recently, she is reportedly having trouble getting booked for more“:

(more…)

Buried in the E&E News (subs. req’d) story this morning about the Kerry-Boxer bill is this piece of news:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said floor action this year remains on the agenda. Asked yesterday whether the Senate is on track to pass a climate bill before December’s international climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, he replied, “Yup.”

While I don’t think it’s crucial, I certainly would like to see a fast track for the bill.  Two guesses as to whether these comments by Reid get anywhere near as much attention in the status quo media as his earlier comments that the bill might not get to the floor this year.

Kerry and Boxer intentionally left out the details of key provisions needed to bring along moderates and Republicans, including a nuclear title and final negotiations on coal with carbon capture and storage.  Still, the reaction wasn’t as bad as I had feared:

(more…)

The Senate climate bill has a name:  The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Okay, it’s not a clever acronym, like the House’s American Clean Energy and Security act or ACES.  The key point is jobs and American power.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the lead sponsor of The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.  He lays out the case for the bill in Politico, “A new path for energy use.”

[I am told the word "energy" is in the bill title (and that the Politico piece has it wrong).  Senate Environment and Public Works committee has Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.]

You’ll notice Kerry never uses the term “cap and trade,” which is arguably the lamest phrase ever developed by progressives since, oh, I don’t know, maybe “public option.”  The bill is a pollution reduction and investment bill.

Kerry seems seems to me to have the basic messages right, so his piece is a must-read for progressives who want to know the pitch:

(more…)

The final bill will not be unveiled until tomorrow, but Senators Kerry and Boxer (and their cosponsers) have managed to put together a bill that I believe is environmentally, economically and politically stronger than the House bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will unveil a bill Wednesday that aims for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by the year 2020, according to several sources and a close-to-final version of the bill obtained by The Washington Post.

Note: While that 800-page bill linked to above may be “close to final,” it will change in many places, so I would not rely on it too heavily for specific details.  Indeed, Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports an aide to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying, “It’s a snapshot in time of our restructure of the [House] bill, but it doesn’t really reflect where the bill is now.”

Certainly 20% is better than the House’s 17% — and more than justified by both the science and recent emissions trends (see “EIA stunner: By year’s end, we’ll be 8.5% below 2005 levels of CO2 — halfway to climate bill’s 2020 target“).

Unlike the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate proposal preserves the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate large sources of greenhouse gases, such as coal-fired power pants.

That’s a good change, but it’ll be a huge fight to keep it.

“It’s clearly stronger than the House bill,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “This very well may be the high-water mark for strong action on climate in this Congress, since it will face many efforts to erode it as it moves through the Senate.”

CP readers will not be surprised if that target changes as the bill winds its way through the Senate — and your 60 seconds to cry about that political reality is over …. now.  The bill keeps the key House targets of 42% cut by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

(more…)

“The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible,” said Rowe. “Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”

“Inaction on climate is not an option,” said Rowe. “If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution.”

Exelon issued a press release today announcing CEO John Rowe’s decision to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It includes the above excerpts from his speech calling for immediate action by Congress.

More and more utilities have cut the power to the Chamber (see “Will last company to leave the Chamber’s Boardroom please turn off the lights!“) — though they have been in the dark a long time (see “Chamber admits calling for ‘Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’ was dumb — but it still apes the deniers“).

Okay, enough puns.  Here’s the background, from Wonk Room:

(more…)

CALLER: Yes, I agree with the Senator on what he says about the climate change. I believe that the world is just changing like it usually does….

INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming. The science really isn’t there.

Thank God the Senator from Oklahoma is here to promise us that that the Almighty will override at a planetary level the laws of physics He created and simply stop human-emissions of heat-trapping gases from ravaging his Creation.  Now if we can only get Inhofe to tell God to stop all cancers and traffic accidents, too.

More seriously,  the only thing more stunning than the fact that a U.S. Senator — the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works committee, no less — would advance such a predeterministic view is that anyone in the media would treat him seriously (see for instance, “NYT’s Green Inc. blog wins worst headline of the day“).

But this fundamentalist, anti-scientific tripe, far from disqualifying Inhofe, puts him in very good company with other leading conservative politicians:

(more…)

Part 1 looked at how, conservatives vowed to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy following the House vote on the climate bill.

That anti-climate litmus test threatens the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren — and will ultimately prove self-destructive for conservatives, too, as noted in Part 2: Opposing clean energy hurts GOP — Mellman.  More recent polling further underscores the danger of opposing the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill (see Swing state poll finds 60% “would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill” and Independents support the bill 2-to-1).

Now Think Progress reports on another striking GOP effort to purge a member who failed the litmus test:

(more…)

Senate leaders indicated that while there will be a debate on the Murkowski amendment, it will not come to a vote.

Her effort to undermine the Clean Air Act, to fiddle while Alaska burns has failed.  But she will likely come back to offer this amendment in the future.  EPA action through the CAA remains an imperfect and politically unreliable tool for achieving short-term, medium-term, and long-term emissions reductions — and no tool at all for achieving an international climate treaty (see “The dangerous myth that the EPA’s endangerment finding can somehow stop dangerous warming if the climate bill dies“).

Climate science activists need to focus on passing the comprehensive energy and global warming bill to create jobs, increase America’s energy independence, reduce pollution, and preserve clean air and clean water for future generations.  And who knows, if she has any intellectual consistency and any interest in stopping her home state from being ravaged, maybe the Senator from Alaska will vote for the final bill — see Murkowski calls for tougher energy bill: “Climate legislation must have more immediate environmental benefits” than Waxman-Markey!

UPDATE:  Here is the EPA letter against the latest version of the Murkowski amendment.

UPDATE2:  She is on the Senate floor right now (12:53) throwing in the towel and defending her absurd proposal.  Now she claims there is a “rush” to pass a Senate climate bill — after 12 years of doing nothing.

UPDATE3:  Murkowski says she will “working in good faith” with those in the Senate trying to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill.  She says she has cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation.  Claims the Senate energy bill would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which isn’t true.

UPDATE3:  Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) smacks down Murkowski at great length, saying “we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change” and if you don’t want the EPA to take action, then the only alternative is cap-and-trade.  “Global warming is real….  it’s happening all over the world.”  Attacks the “Flat Earth Society” who opposes action.