It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.

Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.

FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC

REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil

The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.

The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.

The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.

The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.

All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.

The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.

The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.

Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.

Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.

Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while

Take it for what it is: my imagination. Except that we already know that most of this WILL certainly happen. What we don’t know yet, is how we’ll react.

Mass production has been used since the industrial revolution as a means of creating large quantities of standardized products. It has many advantages over one-at-a-time production. It reduces coast and provide interchangeable parts.  Its disadvantages are that it can over produce and it dehumanizes labor.

Mass production will often continue to build inventory in spite of an economic slump. Large inventories can lead to massive layoffs. Unemployment reduces consumption and a viscous circle ensues.

Read more of this story »

 Hopefully, the future will record that we had a crisis, but sized the opportunities afforded by the mounting promises of renewable energy and rode them to success. Hopefully, the future will not record that we were bogged down by the narrow interest of lobbyist and missed this golden opportunity.

Read more of this story »

That’s the amount that the California Budget Project expects the State and its residents to receive. The goal is the creation of 400,000 jobs, many of them “green jobs”. The funding comes none too soon, since California’s unemployment rate hit 10.5% in February.

But how will that money be spent in Los Angeles? The Green LA Coalition and the Liberty Hill Foundation seek to answer that question on Friday, April 3rd at “The Federal Stimulus: What it means for Los Angeles and the Environment”.

Read more of this story »

 Russia has raised tariffs and subsidies. The European Union claims that the “Buy American” proposal in the US stimulus plan violates WTO rules.

Under the Bush administration, the US imposed traffics on French cheese in retaliation for French health rules that restricted the sale of US chicken and beef. As Bush left office he was celebrated by the poultry industry for this retaliation. Such irrational lose-lose behavior is absurd, which is why it’s called “war.”

Until the recent slowdown, world trade was expanding and increasing world prosperity. According to Fareed Zakaria in his recent book, The Post-American World, “China’s growth alone has lifted more than 400 million people out of poverty. Poverty is falling in countries housing 80% of the worlds population.”

Read more of this story »

“The Job Impact of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” by Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein at the time, Chair Nominee—Designate Council of Economic Advisers and Office of the Vice President Elect respectively, analyzes the effects of job creation by timing, industry, demography and type. This report examines the manner various components of the Plan effect the size and speed of job growth. The Plan’s goal (in its present form) is to increase jobs by 3 million by the end of 2010.

While this report acknowledges the current steep decline in employment, it is generally optimistic and holds that this trend can be quickly reversed. This report considers the effects between government purchases (job creation) verses tax cuts and shows by a table that purchases produce faster and greater growth in the GDP. This report discusses effect by industry and acknowledges the higher wages and increased positive multiplier effects—the chain of good economic events—of green jobs.

Read more of this story »

The spread of these kinds of initiatives is great news for aspiring ecopreneurs, as the market for green building, alternative energy, and other forms of green products and services becomes the ‘rising tide that lifts all ships’.  Well, at least the ships in the sustainable sector. 

Read more of this story »

The Urban Habitat blog lists an impressive array of sectors where these new jobs will come from:

Read more of this story »