Lieberman-Warner was not opposed by a majority of environmental groups, and it was recognized as an important step. Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club, explained the flaws in the legislation, “We’d like to see the targets and timetables stronger,” although the Sierra Club supported Lieberman-Warner. Hamilton was not alone in concern over the bill. 1Sky, an organization that did oppose the bill, felt we should not back it because it only offers a band-aid solution. Betsy Taylor, President of the 1Sky campaign’s Board of Directors stated:

This bill failed on two fundamental measures and that is why 1Sky and many others did not support it. It would not have reduced carbon emissions as deeply or as quickly as the world scientific community says is necessary to address global warming. And, it would have given more money to the bloated fossil fuel industry, and left ordinary Americans paying too much for rising energy bills.

1Sky took over 100 murals on climate action to Congress painted by families over Mother’s Day weekend. The murals expressed how important climate legislations is to American families. “We’ve only got one sky, and we’ve got to make sure it stays clean for our children,” said Gillian Caldwell, mother of two and campaign director for 1Sky. With the failure of Lieberman-Warner, we have a fresh start now for real climate change legislation.

What would effective climate change legislation look like? According to 1Sky:

• Conserve 20 percent of the nation’s energy by 2015, creating 5 million new jobs and pathways out of poverty focused on climate solutions and energy efficiency;

• Reduce global warming pollution at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050;

• Impose a moratorium on new coal plants and end fossil fuel dependence through strong standards and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

On June 4, 2008 Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a comprehensive climate bill entitled the “Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act,” or “iCap,” (HR 6186). Starting in 2012, iCap calls for slashing emissions by 85 percent by 2050 for greenhouse gases, a moratorium on traditional coal plants, auction 100% of pollution permits by 2020, and invest in green workforce training. “I am here today because the chorus for change is deafening. The time for action is now,” said Markey.

Although it is disappointing on many levels that Lieberman-Warner didn’t pass, it is heartening to see that 48 senators did vote to move forward with the legislation. The good news in the failure is that we now have an opportunity to pass real legislation, like iCap, under a new Congress and new president. We need uncompromising legislation that will boost the economy through green technologies and adequately curb carbon emissions. Since the Climate Security Act failed, we now have another chance!

Image: 1Sky

Relate posts on climate policies:

• White House Newsflash: Global Warming VERY LIKELY Caused by Human

• (Live)blogging “Energy’s Future is in Technology” (Part II - Politics & Policy)

• It’s Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change

• Obama: Blame the Iraq War for Lack of US Climate Change Leadership

…most of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Very likely caused by humans-now that’s a definitive statement on climate change! Once again the US government has failed to make a clearcut connection between humans and climate change.

Why do we need our government to make an absolute statement that humans are to blame for climate change?

Without such a strong statement linking the human causes and effects of global warming, we are impotent to pass real legislation and regulations that will drastically curb greenhouse gases now! We can’t wait four more years for the next report to come out to say, “Yea, we are screwed and entirely to blame.” A definitive statement by the US government would end the silly debate about global warming that has distracted us from taking action beyond individual citizens. As Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, stated, “It’s important the government go on record honestly acknowledging this stuff.”

Why would the US government not want to make the connection between climate change and human actions absolute?

The climate science behind the report is not new, and neither is the White House spin. The “Scientific Assesment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States,” report states:

Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system. Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured.

Yet have no fear Americans! White House associate science director Sharon Hays declined to characterize the findings as bad, in a teleconference with reporters. That’s right, increased heat-related deaths and water shortages are not all bad. So what is not negative in the report: The doubt that humans are solely to blame. Now that’s something to celebrate!

I don’t know why the US government cannot admit human blame for climate change. It reminds me of my six-year-old daughter saying she did not drop ice cream on the floor, when she was the only one eating ice cream. Does the government fear it will get in trouble like my daughter and have to clean it up if it admits blame? Would such an admission open up even more litigation opportunities for the states, as well as for individuals to sue polluting corporations? Well, have no fear Americans, our president won’t even read this report. George Bush has already vowed to veto the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act before the Senate even debates the bill, because it will hurt the US economy. Oh yea, blazing wildfires, pestilence, and famine won’t hurt the economy at all.

It didn’t take Mean Joe Green four years to create a political cartoon on the climate change report). Although I disagree with Joe’s idea that the report is entirely “realistic”, given that it does not take a definitive stance on the human causes of climate change, at least the doom and gloom predictions of severe weather, water shortages, heat waves, etc. ring true. As biologist Thomas Lovejoy says of the climate report, “It basically says the America we’ve known we can no longer count on.” It’s a good thing Republicans live on another planet; they’re going to need it.

Related posts on the US government and climate change:

• It’s Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change

• It’s Not the Economy; It’s the Environment!

• Mean Joe Green #12: White House Completes a Realistic Climate Change Report 4 years late!

As I see it, there were several themes threaded throughout the program. And over the next couple of days, I will be addressing each of them in turn. I will first address the politics and policies of our energy future, as raised by the panelists.

Politics & Policy

Although the panel discussion was not exactly intended to center on politics and policy, the discussion was continually being pulled in that direction. It seemed that nearly everyone had something to say about the role of government. And while there may have been clear political and ideological divisions amongst the panelists, they all generally agreed that the federal government has, up to this point, pretty much dropped the ball when it comes to leading the way with effective  energy policy programs.

Absolutely we need a national energy policy strategy, said Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Chair of the five-person California Energy Commission. Pfannenstiel, who was appointed to the board by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2004, argued that a uniform policy would be nice, but added, ” you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Paul K. Siegele, Vice President of Strategic Development for Chevron voiced his concern that as a direct result of federal abdication of responsibility, a patchwork of policies in the 50 U.S. states have hampered gasoline distribution and driven up costs for the oil manufacturers. Siegele was very concerned about the absence of federal leadership on climate and energy policy and when pressed by Maria Surma Manka, he admitted that a fair cap and trade policy that would not single out individual industries would be the preferred policy mechanism ( as opposed to a straight carbon tax).

Pfannenstiel, on the other hand, was not as concerned about the patchwork of energy and climate policies that vary from state to state, as was Siegele. She said that good energy efficiency policy in California could presumably set the model for the national picture. Pfannenstiel added that legislating to take advantage of the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency was where policymakers could really lead the way.

Trae Vasallo of the venture capitalist firm, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers said:  “The government has not stepped up in terms of investment… private early stage venture capitalists are actually outspending the federal government.” This comment actually drew some audible gasps from the audience.

David Victor, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Affairs did not mince words about his pessimism. Victor noted that it is going to be really hard for the US to lead in global climate change policy, because the federal government has not done particularly well so far, and they have yet to convince the global community that they are serious about addressing climate change. “Over the next few decades I am very pessimistic… I am pessimistic about changing the near-term trajectory…”

But Victor was not only pessimistic about the U.S. government’s ability to affect change, he was also concerned that governments in general were little match against the resource-rich companies that are driving the global economy, adding, “the governments of the world have very little leverage.”

Finally, there was one brief mention of a policy program that got my attention as something that could seriously hamper the construction of new power plants. Apparently, there is a bill in the California legislature that would limit long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) between energy producers using dirty technologies like coal and the utilities that purchase the energy. The problem is that until tougher regulations are adopted on the construction of new coal-fired power plants, utilities will continue to bring those plants on line - mostly because they are required by law to do so (PURPA).

Please stay tuned as I will next address the roles of technology and consumer behavior in shaping our energy future.

Related Posts:

“Liveblogging Energy’s Future is in Technology (Part I)”

“Oil Companies’ Shareholders Reject Activist Proposals”

Photo Courtesy of API

Two weeks ago while campaigning in Oregon, McCain stood amongst wind turbines to talk climate change:

Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.

I agree with McCain on many levels, but what exactly are his climate change strategies beyond political rhetoric? According to Plenty Magazine, “He proposes a cap-and-trade scheme that will limit greenhouse gas emissions to sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050;” however, scientists, Obama, and Clinton recommend 80 percent reductions. McCain does not favor allowing companies to buy extra carbon allowances, and he supports carbon offsetting. The problem with McCain’s ideas on climate change is he supports tax payer subsidies for nuclear power and has voted several times against a renewable energy standard.

Nuclear power is not the answer, as the issue of waste disposal has not been resolved and there are safety concerns. Now, Senator McCain plans to “hijack” landmark legislation on global warming. The “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act” falls short of the 80% reduction of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels as recommended by scientists, and with the proposals supported by John McCain, it could be “the greatest greenwash of our generation.” Not only does the bill give carbon permits valued at one trillion dollars to the fossil fuel industry for free, McCain will only support the legislation if it takes funds away from clean energy sources, like wind and solar, and gives them to the nuclear power industry. What could have been real legislation to curb the effects on climate change will become a a vehicle for subsidizing the nuclear power industry if McCain has his way. Meanwhile, Senator Boxer is circulating a new version of the bill.

I won’t pretend to understand everything proposed by Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer, but at least McCain is not doubting global warming, as the current administration has done. Obviously, I am not a McCain supporter; however, when I hear him interviewed on a personal level, I like him. When he starts to talk to politics, I am reminded that he is a Republican and not the leader we need now. I actually voted for McCain once in a political maneuver as an independent California voter in the Republican primary. My efforts failed to win McCain the nomination over Bush, but I do think this country would have been better off after eight years of McCain rather than Bush. Of course, we would have been even better off after eight years of Gore.

Image: johnmccain.com

Related posts on the 2008 US presidential elections and the environment:

• The John McCain 100% Organic Cotton ‘Onesie?’

• Dems Aim to Leave Green Legacy in Denver

• Obama: Blame the Iraq War for Lack of US Climate Change Leadership

• Bill McKibben Discusses Obama, the Dems, and the Environmental Movement [video]

Shortly after last week’s primaries, Obama stated:

I think the way we have run this war in Iraq has lessened our ability to move our allies. It has led us to ignore the critical needs for us to focus on a sound energy policy in this country. It has left us unable to lead on critical global issues like global warming. And it has led us to neglect what ultimately is the most important thing to keeping America safe, and that is having an economy that is the envy of the world and that gives us the resources and the power to project ourselves around the world.

I couldn’t agree more. Not only is the Iraq War being fought over false pretenses, but it has strained the US budget and distracted Americans from the greatest threat to national security: climate change. Many lives have been lost in Iraq, although Americans have been largely shielded from the realities of this war by the media. The media will not be able to shield Americans from the increasing effects of climate change.

Of course, Obama is not perfect when it comes to energy policies. In 2007, he reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, which supported research and plant construction in order to convert coal into diesel engine fuel. This is not the right climate solution to lessen our foreign oil dependency. Considering that “Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined“, is Obama supporting liquid coal fuel for political reasons?

This presidential race is not about race or gender. This race is about climate change, and which candidate will lead America to become an environmental role model in the world. As Obama stated in his interview on CNN, “…if the United States regains its — its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for creating a more peaceful and more prosperous world.”

Image: Flickr-Barack Obama

Related posts on Barack Obama:

• Video: Obama on Climate and Energy : Red, Green, and Blue

• Obama’s New Carolina Ad Rejects Gas Tax Break : Red, Green, and Blue

• Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy : Red, Green, and Blue

Then I discovered the ads were produced by the We Campaign which was started by The Alliance for Climate Protection. My heart almost stopped beating when I realized I absolutely loved something that has its roots in the efforts of Al Gore. Yes, I am a conservative, and I admittedly have a strong aversion to Al Gore. Nonetheless, I repeatedly returned to We and to the ads. I overcame my stubborn ideals (my first instinct was, I cannot promote this because it belongs to Al Gore) and decided to embrace the cause (my heart said, you are passionate about bi-partisan efforts in environmentalism and you must promote this).

Climate change is an effort that must be embraced by all sides. Progress will not be made until the “I am right and you are wrong” statements and innuendos cease. The argument over who or what is causing Global Warming is ineffective and only halts environmental efforts on all fronts. For my conservative friends who think Global Warming is a “non-issue” I say, embrace a cause for the planet and think beyond the Global Warming label. This is our environment, our habitat, and we must make an effort to take care of it.

Photo Credit: Geoarts on Flickr

Tim Hurst wrote, “I would argue that the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issue” in response to rumors that Bush supports a new climate proposal. Could this be Bush’s declaration of war on climate change? I hope not, as the United States has failed to previously win a war on cancer, poverty, or drugs, and these wars have gone on for decades. We don’t have decades to solve the problem of climate change; we must do it now. Of course, when Bush is involved, I have to be skeptical of his true intentions, especially when the Associate Press reports the Bush administration is motivated to avoid a “train wreck” of climate change regulations. I suspect the Bush climate policy would be a watered down version of these other regulations, besides the White House may already be retreating on the issue.

We don’t need to declare war on global warming; we need to take action. Action will require governmental regulation that is effective and not impotent. Water-downed policies created in an election year will not solve the problem and place the United States in a position of world leader on climate change. Action should be taken not for political reasons; actions should be taken to preserve our climate.

Image credit: Sierra Club

Related posts:

• Could Action on Climate Really Be Bush Legacy?
• 350 Parts Per Million: It’s the Magic Number!
• Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science
• Bush Continues to Erode Own Scientific Integrity

huh?

In light of my recent post about the demoralizing effect this administration has had upon EPA scientists and other agency ‘lifers’, I was more than just a little surprised to hear about the story leaked in Monday’s Washington Times that reports President Bush is “poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined on Monday to confirm rumors that action was imminent, though she would not rule it out. She said the administration’s discussions are building toward an expected debate on climate change in the Senate in June [watch video of White House press conference here].

If President George W. Bush throws his support behind mandatory carbon dioxide regulations, it would indeed be a major shift away from his insistence that placing binding caps on emissions would harm the U.S. economy.

Not So Fast?
Jeffrey Holmstead, an attorney with Bracewell and Giuliani LLP and a former EPA official, said the White House was not “on the verge of a fundamental shift” in climate change policy. “I don’t think that anyone should be holding their breath waiting for a dramatic new cap-and-trade proposal from the administration,” Holmstead said. [read more about the environmental leanings of Giuliani and Bracewell LLP here]

It is possible that word from the White House may come as early as Thursday, when Bush is scheduled to speak in the Rose Garden to recipients of the President’s Environmental Youth Awards.

I would argue that the only opportunity the current president has to leave a positive and lasting legacy is to take ownership of the climate change and global warming issues (and all of the thorny issues they present). Bush would have to seize the opportunity with all the capacity, all of the willpower, and all of the resources that he can possibly muster as the leader of the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world and channel it towards solving the most pressing problem facing humanity today.

Many would argue that this president damaged the environment as well as the institutions we have built to protect it, beyond any hope of repair. While it may be true that the ecological damages may never be undone, the beauty of the democratic project is such that, it allows us to challenge those assumptions and rebuild those crumbling institutions which allowed the ecological damage in the first place.

Reuters
The Washington Times
Photo courtesy of JohnnyC

If you ask me, one of the best things about this election season thus far, is that voters who never thought their state’s caucus or primary would actually matter in deciding a presidential nominee, are finding out that they do matter - quite considerably. Our friends over at EnviroWonk did an excellent job of covering the recent presidential candidates’ whirlwind visits to Missoula, Montana. As a digital media addendum, I’ve posted a 3-minute clip of Barack Obama speaking on climate and energy policy from Missoula. A couple of nuggets from the Obama stump:

• “Exxon Mobil made $11 billion last quarter; last quarter! And we’re melting the polar ice caps in the bargain. It’s a bad deal all around - unless you’re ExxonMobil”
• “There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between good environmental policy and good economic policy.”

“Clean” Coal is a joke — so this cartoon pretty much writes itself…

John Walke, the Clean Air director for the National Resources Defense Council, called the intervention an “unprecedented and unlawful act of political interference”.

With all due respect Mr. Walke, after the past 7 years unprecedented and unlawful moves seem to be the norm.

For more on this read Thank You Bush for Weakening Smog Limits.

And spread the word. Just because he only has a year left in office doesn’t mean he should be ignored!

The law prohibits federal procurement of fuels that produce more global warming emissions than conventional sources. Canada is concerned because the fuel taken from the oilsands is considered alternative fuel under the new energy act and it produces more global warming emissions than other sources. It complicates things because U.S. firms have major investments in the oilsands and the U.S. government currently gets a lot of fuel from there, so the U.S. essentially passed a law that could jeopardize this arrangement. In the province of Alberta, the oilsands represent the second largest oil reserve on the planet after Saudi Arabia.

One possible solution is to reclassify the oilsands from an alternative fuel to a conventional fuel so the global warming law doesn’t apply to it. From the National Post:

The rationale for classifying the oilsands as conventional oil is that, unlike alternative fuel sources, the deposits are well established, yielding more than one million barrels a day and likely to produce more than three million barrels a day by the middle of the next decade. As such, they are no longer “a science experiment,” as one source put it.

A U.S. working group is looking into the problem and will decide whether to classify the oilsands fuel as conventional or alternative this spring.

Climatebiz.com
National Post

According to the Grist, “the EPA set both the ‘public health’ standard (how much ozone is permitted in one place at one time) and the ‘public welfare’ standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level.” Before Bush’s command, the EPA had planned to make the “public welfare” standard more stringent, though not as low as their scientists were recommending. Bush’s orders sent the agency scrambling to avoid conflict with past EPA statements on the harmful effects of ozone. As quoted in the Washington Post, John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained:

It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA’s expert scientific judgment.

So the next time you take a deep breath of smog filled air, responsible for heart and respiratory illnesses, thank the president for once again protecting the “public welfare” of big business.

Image source: noezbuckets

Last week, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a bill that recognizes that surface owners control the underground pore spaces where carbon dioxide could be stored or sequestered. A companion bill, gives the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality the authority to regulate the long-term storage of carbon dioxide.

“With the signing of these two bills today, Wyoming puts itself in the forefront of carbon sequestration legislation. This is a forward-thinking approach to protect both Wyoming’s economy and Wyoming’s environment.” Gov. Freudenthal called the legislation a “groundbreaking” framework for carbon capture and sequestration

Earlier this year, Freudenthal told the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee that the Wyoming Legislature had an opportunity to lead the nation in regulating long-term carbon capture and sequestration.

The strange thing about this law, is that it takes the overriding principle of so-called “split-estates” and turn them on their heads. You see, when sub-surface mineral rights are not owned by the same party as owns the surface rights, this is called a split-estate. Split-estate land development has allowed the BLM to lease out sub-surface mineral reserves of oil and gas to the highest-bidding energy developers. Unfortunately for surface owners, access to precious minerals trumps virtually any other use, and there is little one can do to prevent the oil and gas underneath their land. When push comes to shove, there is often little regard for the surface owner’s rights.

This bill would essentially put sub-surface mineral development rights in the hands of the surface owners (presumably ranchers, farmers, oil and gas companies, etc.), who would then have the legal right to fill the cavernous subsurface voids with carbon from coal-fired power plants. My question is this, do we actually have the technology that tells us exactly where the carbon dioxide would go once it is pumped back into the ground well enough to determine the proper surface owner? There is something funny about this law and I don’t like the path it could take us down.

WyomingNews.Com

Photo: wyoming.gov