The best way to move forward on climate policy is to not focus on climate at all. "Climate Pragmatism" argues that we can move past the climate wars by focusing on what we already agree on: energy innovation, pollution reduction, and resilience to extreme weather.
The best way to move forward on climate policy is to not focus on climate at all.
That's the conclusion of new report by authors from Oxford, London School of Economics, Third Way, the American Enterprise Institute, the Breakthrough Institute and others. Climate Pragmatism argues that we can move past the climate wars by focusing on what we already agree on: energy innovation, pollution reduction, and resilience to extreme weather.
While there is no evidence -- and indeed, great counter-evidence -- that nations can reduce their carbon emissions through caps, there is more than 200 years of evidence of nations moving to cleaner energy, reducing toxic air pollution, and adapting to the climate. These three pillars of climate pragmatism swim with, rather than against, the process of human development and modernization.
The "Climate Pragmatism" paper explodes a myth that's held by many greens: that energy is too cheap. For most of the world, the opposite is true, which is why more than 1.4 billion people lack virtually any access to electricity. That's an astounding figure, but one that rarely gets the attention it deserves. Lack of electricity impacts public health -- try running a modern hospital without any power -- and retards economic growth. If we want developing nations to be better prepared to deal with the effects of climate change -- or just about any other threat -- we need to get them wired.
Where the old climate regime spent 20 years developing a bureaucracy waiting on the two largest emitters -- China and the U.S. -- Climate Pragmatism says that we can get started right away doing more of the things we already agree on and have great experience doing.
Such an approach disappoints climate warriors and partisans. Al Gore, for one, is organizing another day of PowerPoint lectures. But public support for the environment is at more than 30 year-low, cap and trade is dead, perhaps for good, and global warming has become as partisan and polarizing an issue as abortion and gun control.
Climate Pragmatism also comes at a time when national political leaders are moving toward a more pragmatic approach to climate. In the Guardian/Yale360, we argue that Obama's greatest contribution to the environment was moving the Democratic discourse away from global warming apocalypse and toward economic aspiration. Last week, when New York Mayor Bloomberg donated $50 million to anti-coal activism, he pointedly framed his remarks around public health, not climate change.
Climate warriors and skeptics will, to be sure, keep their 20-year feud alive. But they may no longer impede climate progress.
Last week Breakthrough co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus returned to Yale University for a retrospective on their seminal 2004 essay, "The Death of Environmentalism." In their speech they argued that the critical work of rethinking green politics was cut short by fantasies about green jobs and "An Inconvenient Truth." The latter backfired -- more Americans started to believe news of global warming was being exaggerated after the movie came out -- the former made false promises that could not be realized by cap and trade. What is an earnest green who cares about global warming to do now? In this speech, Nordhaus and Shellenberger reflect on what went so badly awry, and offer 12 Theses for a post-environmental approach to climate change.
It is a great pleasure to be here at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies for this retrospective on "The Death of Environmentalism." In early 2005 Yale invited us to debate that essay, and since then the School has continued to demonstrate a genuine interest in what our friend and colleague Peter Teague has taken to calling ecological innovation. You train your students to ask hard questions -- we saw this first hand in 2010 Breakthrough Fellow and Yale School Masters candidate David Mitchell -- and your flagship publication, Yale360, is publishing some of the most interesting green thinkers today. We are grateful once again for this opportunity to reflect on the nearly seven years since we wrote our essay, and make some new arguments about what the green movement must do now.
Seven years ago the two of us started interviewing America's environmental leaders with the intention of writing a report on the politics of global warming for the October 2004 meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association. We came away from the experience deeply disappointed. Not one of the environmental leaders we interviewed articulated a compelling vision or strategy for dealing with the challenge. None expressed much interest in rethinking their assumptions about the problem or the solutions. What we heard again and again during our interviews were the same old riffs that green leaders had been repeating since the late 1980's. Global warming would be solved through the same kinds of policies that we had used to address past pollution problems such as acid rain. Most were confident that John Kerry was, with their help, about to be elected president, and the biggest funders in the movement told us they were just a few steps away from passing cap and trade legislation.
That October we delivered our paper, "The Death of Environmentalism," at the Environmental Grantmakers Association conference. While leaders at environmental philanthropies and national green groups hoped that the debate the essay started would just go away, "The Death of Environmentalism" struck a cord with many others and sparked a spirited debate. Many took the paper's arguments personally and, without question, the most common reaction to our essay was "I'm not dead." Our friend Adam Werbach gave a speech called "Is Environmentalism Dead," wherein he suggested that environmentalists make common cause with a broader coalition of progressive interests in hopes of building a broader and more diverse movement. And Yale's own Gus Speth questioned whether capitalism itself was compatible with ecological sustainability and suggested a radical shift in values was required to deal with the problem.
Democrats pulled the plug on ill-fated climate and energy legislation that finally collapsed under its own weight and - believe it or not - that is a good thing. Now a new window is open to shift the overarching goal of climate policy toward unleashing a clean energy revolution brought about by large scale government investment in clean energy technology innovation. In a series of posts, Breakthrough highlights the means by which we can develop a new strategy for achieving transformative clean energy progress that is capable of overcoming the policy and political barriers that have always doomed cap and trade.
Written by Joshua Freed, Senior Policy Advisor for the Clean Energy Initiative at Third Way. Cross posted from The Huffington Post
In 1798, a new federal agency began its life in a one-room laboratory to provide health care for merchant sailors. It covered the costs of this service by sending a single clerk from across the country to collect 20 cents per month from each sailor. This agency, originally the Merchant Health Service, gave birth to what today is the National Institutes of Health. And the NIH should serve as a model for where we need to go on energy research and development in America.
The NIH is extremely effective at what it does. A new report by Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management says the NIH plays a "central role" in medical innovation. According to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, the NIH was "instrumental" in funding 15 of the 21 major breakthrough drugs from 1965 to 1992.
Fifteen of 21 major medical breakthroughs - that mean 71% of our medical progress has come through NIH. That's a terrific investment.
In every policy debate in Washington, it is vital that the public appreciate what's in it for them, how a program will work, and why it will be successful. The NIH is well-known and highly regarded because it is easy for the public to understand:
As the JEC study shows, funding goes out; very smart people use it; we get good results.
The reality is that the current scheme of funding for energy R&D alone is not enough to drive innovation at the pace or scale required to spark a clean energy revolution. Despite the very good work many of our national energy labs conduct, the reality is that the Department of Energy was not intended to conduct energy R&D that is connected to commercial development and consumer use. DOE was born from disparate nuclear weapons and energy agencies. Sixty-three percent of its funding in the FY08 budget and almost 50 percent in FY09 was for nuclear weapons management and clean up. Simply put, this department is not currently set up to spend the $15 billion in new R&D funding we believe is necessary to transition to clean energy.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown joined Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute today to unveil a new report calling for both the creation of a "National Institutes of Energy" and a dramatic increase in federal funding for energy research and development to jumpstart a clean energy revolution.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and leading DC-based think tank Third Way are the latest political figures to issue a call for significantly increased public investment to catalyze clean energy innovation. The Ohio Senator and the moderate progressive think tank joined the Breakthrough Institute today to unveil a new report calling for both the creation of a "National Institutes of Energy" and a dramatic increase in federal funding for energy research and development. The report, titled Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy, argues that these two measures are necessary to make clean energy cheap and get America running on clean energy.
"Clean energy is the future of our nation, but it can also create jobs now - in Ohio and across the Midwest," Senator Sherrod Brown said. "Done right, increased research and development of new clean energy technologies will drive innovation and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Already in Ohio entrepreneurs and workers are leading the way."
"Our nation has a history of rising to meet pressing challenges by investing the resources necessary to overcome them," said Jesse Jenkins, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute and one of the report's authors. "Now, America must dramatically increase our investment in clean energy research and development and employ new and effective models to put that money to work. Clean, cheap energy technologies are needed to revitalize our economy, secure the nation's energy independence, and avert the risks of climate change," Jenkins added.
Modeled after the National Institutes of Health, a New National Institutes of Energy (NIE) would be designed to most effectively channel R&D funding toward the development of new, low-cost commercial clean energy technologies. The NIE would function as a nationwide network of regionally based, commercially focused, and coordinated innovation institutes. Alongside other effective research institutions, the new NIE would critically strengthen the nation's energy innovation capacity.
The report also calls for a sustained increase of $15 billion in annual federal energy R&D funding, consistent with President Barack Obama's proposals. This would result in a total annual R&D budget of roughly $20 billion per year. The purpose of both the R&D increase and the establishment of a new NIE is to close what the authors call "the clean energy price gap" - the difference between the current low price of carbon-intensive energy production like coal and the comparatively higher price of today's non- or low- carbon emitting technologies.
"Getting America running on clean energy is the defining challenge - and opportunity - of our time," said Josh Freed, a co-author of the paper who runs Third Way's Clean Energy Initiative. "Establishing a National Institutes of Energy and fully funding R&D will drive the research that will lead to the next generation of clean technologies. These not only will fight global warming, they will allow the United States to be the energy leader in a carbon-constrained world."
In a recent speech at Harvard, energy secretary Steven Chu again supported an agenda to make the US a leading clean energy innovator. But Congress continues to reject strategic policies that would make this a reality.
In a speech yesterday at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, energy secretary Steven Chu again repeated his declaration that nothing less than a technological "revolution" is necessary to meet America's energy challenge and to ensure the US position as a leading global economic power.
Speaking alongside Congressman Ed Markey, Chu told his audience that future US prosperity depends upon widely deploying renewable energy, developing carbon capture and storage capabilities, and increasing energy efficiency--but most importantly, it depends upon becoming a leading innovator in clean energy technologies.
Chu minced no words when he described this critical juncture for the US in the
global clean energy industry:
"We're faced with the following choices: We can become the leader of a new industrial revolution and lay the foundation of our future economic prosperity ... or we can hope the price of oil will go back to $30 a barrel, deny climate change is happening and let other countries take the lead in energy innovation."
On a morning radio show, Congressman Waxman responded directly to the Breakthrough Institute. His response raises concerns about whether ACES can be significantly strengthened in the Senate.
Earlier today, Congressman Henry Waxman was asked to directly respond to the Breakthrough Institute's analysis of the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) during an interview on the Montel Williams Across America radio show. His segment came after my interview on the same show, where I highlighted Breakthrough's analysis and spoke about some of our concerns with the bill.
Listen to Teryn Norris interview with Montel:
Listen to Rep. Waxman interview with Montel:
Below is a transcript of Waxman's response (starting at 5:00 minutes, podcast also available here). Rep. Waxman is Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and lead author of the ACES climate bill:
Montel Williams: "Teryn Norris from the Breakthrough Institute and several other people say that this [bill] is based on credits that would be given out and traded by companies to meet their carbon footprint - I'm being told that 85% of these are being given away when they could have been auctioned off, which would have been a revenue source that could have been put toward more forms of renewable energy. Why did we decide to give away these credits rather than auction them off?"
Congressman Waxman: "We're giving away the credits to utilities in order to protect ratepayers. The credits they won't have to pay for won't be charged to ratepayers, both individual consumers and businesses... So this is a way to be fair to the consumers.
Compared to President Obama's promises and the recommendations of a variety of energy experts alike, the ACES climate and clean energy bill's investments in clean energy are an order of magnitude too small.
[Updated 5/22/09: the ACES bill now includes a $10/ton price floor for auctioned pollution permits. The analysis below has been updated to reflect that change in the legislation]
Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). The bill promises to cap and reduce carbon pollution, create clean energy jobs, and spur technology innovation. Unfortunately, as our analysis of the use of carbon pollution allowances in the ACES bill revealed, the bill is on course to invest very little of the hundreds of billions of dollars in value created by the bill's cap-and-trade program over the coming years towards those objectives.
Most of the allowance value (74 percent) created by the ACES cap and trade program is dedicated to blunting the impact of the carbon price established by the program on industries and consumers (and securing the critical swing votes on the committee representing these entrenched energy and industry interests). In contrast, just 12 percent of the allowance value is dedicated to clean energy investments, broadly defined.
At an average allowance price of $10 to $20 dollars per ton of CO2 between 2012-2025, that would amount to clean energy investments of just $6-12 billion per year, and just $490-980 million for clean energy R&D (see our full analysis of the allowance allocations in ACES for more).
President Obama has repeatedly promised to, "Invest $150 billion over ten years in energy research and development to transition to a clean energy economy" (from WhiteHouse.gov). The President's 2010 Budget Outline specifically dedicated $15 billion per year in new revenue generated by a cap and trade program to this purpose. Yet the bill before us, depending on the allowance value it establishes, would invest just one-fifteenth to one-thirtieth of the $15 billion President Obama has pledged -- and specifically requested from Congress. Furthermore, this new energy R&D spending may amount to just a ten percent increase in current federal energy R&D budgets.
Likewise, the total investments in a new clean energy economy, more broadly defined, are an order of magnitude smaller than proposals advanced by the Breakthrough Institute, Apollo Alliance and others have deemed necessary to drive clean energy innovation, create millions of new energy jobs, and jump-start a prosperous, clean energy economy.
Below the fold, you can see how the clean energy investments made by the ACES bill compare with what a range of proposals and current R&D funding levels...
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is poised to give hundreds of billions of dollars in free pollution permits to the entrenched interests of the dirty energy past. Will climate advocates rally to ensure the value of the remaining permits is invested to create a clean, prosperous energy future?
As sweeping climate and clean energy legislation is readied for debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, detailsareemerging on the deals and compromises struck between the bill's architects, Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) and the group of reluctant swing members of the committee who hail largely from states reliant on coal and heavy industry.
The "breakthrough deal" struck between Waxman, Markey and the swing E&C Committee Dems will enable a full subcommittee markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) beginning Thursday and likely proceeding through next week (markup = votes on a series of amendments on the proposed bill followed vote to pass the bill out of (sub)committee). The deal apparently involves a series of concessions that either incrementally weaken the objectives of the bill or give free greenhouse gas pollution permits to utilities and heavy industry in order to blunt the impact of the proposed cap and trade program on these sectors of the economy.
The more things change, the more things stay the same: Senator Arlen Specter announced today he would be switching party allegiance and running for re-election as a Democrat in 2010. Unfortunately, the new "D" next to his name is unlikely to change the policy positions of this free-thinking Senator from Pennsylvania - especially when it comes to climate legislation.
The 'interwebs' are abuzz today with the surprise announcement that moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is switching parties and plans to run as a Democrat when he makes his 2010 re-election bid.
The move is clearly a powerful symbol of how far to the right the Republican Party has moved in recent years. What it means for policy is less clear.
Senator Specter's membership in the Democrat ranks would nominally give the party the sixty votes necessary to overcome the near-constant threat of Republican filibuster in the Senate (assuming Democrat Al Franken wins the contested court battle that will decide Minnesota's senate seat). That has prompted a sudden burst of optimism about the prospects of contentious Democratic policy priorities, including health care reform and climate change legislation.
ClimateProgress's Joe Romm blithely asserts, for example, that Senator Specter's new party allegiance will mean he'll change his stance on climate legislation. "One assumes that if he is going to seriously run as a Democrat, he'll support an energy and climate bill," Romm wrote today.
More astuteobservers, however, quickly recognize that Senator Specter's move changes little in the landscape of climate politics. For serious advocates of urgently needed and effective climate legislation, it's not hard to see why. We simply have to ask ourselves: does the "D" next to this free-thinking Senator's name suddenly change his vote on climate legislation? Of course not.
If we want to pass policies that will truly catapult the United States into a clean and prosperous energy economy, slash global warming pollution, and make clean energy cheap and abundant, we need to pass the "Sherrod Brown Test."
For advocates of immediate and strong climate and clean energy legislation, there's one man we should all be paying close attention to: Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
Senator Brown has spoken eloquently on multiple occasions about the power of clean energy technologies to revitalize the hard-hit industrial communities of Ohio and other Heartland states. Just this week, the Ohio Senator penned an op ed in the Capitol Hill paper Roll Call declaring that the time is now to enact strong climate policy:
"If we care about the world in which we live and the generations that will follow us, then we must no longer dismiss the lethal risks global warming poses to our planet. We must craft an aggressive strategy to combat global warming, and we must do it now. ... Inaction is not an option."
Senator Brown is still on the fence, and as the old saying goes, 'the devil is truly in the details:' if the details of climate and clean energy legislation make it something Senator Brown can support and even champion, then there's a decent shot of seeing the remaining swing Senators jump on board, putting 60 votes within reach. On the other hand, if Senator Brown can't support the proposal because he's not convinced it's in the best interests of Ohio or the nation, then kiss hopes of climate action this year good bye.
It's simple: if we want to pass policies that will truly catapult the United States into a clean and prosperous energy economy, slash global warming pollution, and make clean energy cheap and abundant, we need to pass the "Sherrod Brown Test."
We have a post up at Salon today that criticizes cap and trade legislation in the House (Waxman-Markey). We argue that it cannot achieve the clean energy revolution we need. Compromises will no doubt be necessary to pass climate legislation in Congress, but as currently drafted, Waxman-Markey looks like it will make all the wrong compromises, allowing firms to buy dubious and sometimes phony carbon offsets rather than invest in clean energy, giving away billions of pollution allocations to incumbent energy interests for free, and committing a fraction of the funds needed for direct public investments in clean energy research, development, and deployment.
We propose an alternative cap and trade, which would explicitly cap the price of carbon dioxide pollution at roughly $10 per ton, rising over time, would auction all pollution allowances with no free giveaways and no offsetting, and would use the vast majority of the revenues, about $60 billion a year, to fund the accelerated development and deployment of clean energy technologies. We believe that such a solution would more rapidly achieve the technological innovations we need at a lower cost. It is also great politics, given strong public support for government investment in clean energy technology. This is the same position we have held since 2007, when we laid out this basic approach in Break Through and other writings.
Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee says, "by and large," the revenues from climate and clean energy legislation should be reinvested in clean energy technologies; openly critiques President Obama's plan to return 80% of carbon revenues to taxpayers.
Congressman Henry Waxman says, "by and large," the revenues from climate and clean energy legislation should be reinvested in clean energy technologies, Bloomberg News reported Friday.
The statement is a marked improvement over Congressman Waxman's appearance on PBS' Tavis Smiley show last Monday, when he seemed to indicate that the primary driver of clean energy technology innovation and deployment would be the higher prices on dirty fuels set by proposed cap and trade legislation and made little mention of the critical role public investments in clean energy can and must play in accelerating the birth of a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's prior statements that cap and trade is designed to "pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables," Waxman's latest remarks could indicate a growing consensus among House leadership that carbon revenues should be primarily used to spur clean energy technologies and accelerate the transition to a clean, new energy economy.
Congressman Waxman, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee set to draft climate and clean energy legislation over the coming weeks, was also openly critical of President Obama's proposal to send the bulk of revenues raised from a proposed cap and trade system back to taxpayers in the form of middle class tax cuts. Bloomberg quotes the Congressman as saying:
"I don't think that's the best use of it [carbon revenues]," Waxman said. "By and large" it should be spent on green technologies, he said, and part of it could be used to "help consumers with higher energy costs" and hard-hit industries, "especially coal."
The draft climate and clean energy bill circulated three weeks ago by Congressman Waxman and Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) (who chairs the subcommittee taking the first crack at the bill beginning this week) made little commitment to the public investments necessary to spur clean energy innovation and accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies. Waxman's statements last week indicate that commitment may be coming soon, as Markey and Waxman begin the real work of drawing up the climate and energy legislation they hope to send to the House floor by Memorial Day.
The single greatest solution to the world's interlinking energy, economic and climate crises is to once again harness America's forces of innovation to make clean energy technology both cheap and abundant. To harness this solution we must take a new look at the process of innovation and determine the best mechanisms to catalyze and accelerate technology development.
"It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply."
Technology is a cornerstone of American prosperity, the primary source of our economic competitiveness, and a constant presence in our everyday lives. From the 19th century's advances in manufacturing and transportation to today's cutting-edge developments in biotechnology and computer science, Americans have been world leaders in creating, producing, and deploying innovative technology. Nobel Laureate Robert Solow's classic 1956 economic model of productivity growth demonstrated that technological progress drove at least 80% of economic growth in the United States between 1909 to 19491, and innovation continues to be perhaps the most powerful engine of our prosperity.
Today, America and the world are in energy crisis. Energy prices are escalating, foreign energy dependency is increasing, global warming continues unabated, and all across the world there are billions of people who continue to live without access to energy. The single greatest solution to these crises is to once again harness America's forces of innovation to make clean energy technology both cheap and abundant.
But to harness this solution we must take a new look at the process of innovation and determine the best mechanisms to catalyze and accelerate technology development. This requires looking beyond both the mythos of the lone American inventor and the market fundamentalist ideology that has dominated American politics in recent decades. Instead, we must look closely at several key American technologies and unearth the historic and seemingly ubiquitous government investments that fueled their development.
In a 2009 report, the Breakthrough Institute illuminates the stories behind the invention and diffusion of ten technologies that are everyday facets of our modern lives and offers a new look at government involvement in technological development.
In a report released in 2009, the Breakthrough Institute illuminates the stories behind the invention and diffusion of ten technologies that are everyday facets of our modern lives and offers a new look at government involvement in technological development.
The conventional wisdom on climate change -- from Thomas Friedman to the country's largest environmental organizations -- is that cap and trade regulation and carbon pricing is the best way to promote clean energy innovation. However, a growing number of experts, including Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, are challenging this assumption, recognizing the importance of direct, large-scale public investment to achieve developments in clean energy technology. The outcome of this debate and the correct emphasis on public investment and regulation may determine the course of U.S. and global climate policy.
Case Studies in American Innovation presents ten case studies showing that public investment and active government support has been one of the greatest forces behind the nation's technology development and economic growth. Indeed, public investment in the U.S. was largely responsible for railroads, airplanes, microchips, personal computers, and the birth of the Internet -- all of which drove long-term economic development. This evidence not only challenges conventional wisdom on climate policy, but also on national economic policy, which has been dominated for three decades by neoclassical economists.
Democrats should quickly follow President Obama's lead by shifting the focus of climate legislation from pollution regulation to bold government investment in the clean energy economy.
If Democrats want to win on climate policy, they must think fast and move quickly to regain control of the debate. Last week was the opening round of the national climate fight, and the Democratic Congress was nearly knocked out.
It began on Tuesday with the introduction of a major climate bill by Democratic Congressmen Waxman and Markey. The proposal made a fateful choice: it threw out President Obama's "Apollo" plan for investing $150 billion in clean energy and focused instead on meeting the demands of leading environmental organizations, emphasizing cap and trade regulation and a laundry list of electricity and efficiency standards.
Meanwhile, the response to climate legislation in the Senate was swift and harsh, with Republicans deftly maneuvering to secure the political high ground. Senator Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment to the budget (which as originally proposed had included revenues from carbon cap and trade) declaring that any climate legislation should "not increase electricity or gasoline prices," which quickly passed 89 to 8. Senator Ensign (R-NV) then proposed an amendment stating that climate policy should not result in higher taxes on the middle class, passing unanimously (98-0). These votes effectively put all but a handful of Democratic Senators on the record opposing policies to raise the price of dirty energy -- the central purpose of cap and trade regulation, including the provisions at the heart of the Waxman-Markey bill.
What went wrong? The Democratic Congress made a critical mistake in following the direction of leading green groups like Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. By tossing out Obama's energy investment plan and focusing on carbon pricing and regulation, Democrats allowed Republicans to quickly and easily frame the entire debate around increased energy prices and economic costs. That's a fight Republicans take up with relish -- and one they will surely win.
A major new climate bill hit the House of Representatives this week and was met with deft political maneuverings from Senate Republicans that could render cap and trade dead on arrival. The Breakthrough Institute team has the angles covered:
Jesse Jenkins says this new climate bill is proof of misplaced priorities as the leading green groups setting the climate agenda walk away from billions of dollars in critical clean energy investments in favor of regulations, standards and carbon pricing. See also "Climate Bill is All About the Coal Hard Cash" at Huffington Post and listen to Jenkins talk about the Markey-Waxmen bill on KPFA radio.
Meanwhile in the Senate, two Republican amendments may leave cap and trade with no where to go. In reaction to the House climate bill, the Senate this week voted 89-8 to preemptively reject any cap and trade bill that increases consumer energy prices and voted 98-0 to ensure that any climate bill protects middle-income taxpayers from any tax increases.
Michael Shellenberger sees these votes as the clearest rejection yet of the pollution pricing paradigm and examines the artful political maneuverings at play.
Ted Nordhaus is left worrying that the climate bill is on a crash course for compromise that will leave us stuck with the worst of both worlds: a climate policy lacking both a price signal sufficient to drive private investment anywhere near the scale we need and NO money for public investments in an RD&D strategy sufficient to make clean energy cheap.
Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins outline what Democrats can do to regain the political high ground and win the climate debate in this op ed, featured at Huffington Post. If Democrats want to win, they should quickly follow President Obama's lead by shifting the focus of climate legislation from pollution regulation to bold government investment in the clean energy economy.
While Congressional Democrats and leading green groups insist that what the public wants is cap and trade to deal with climate change, yet another poll was released today showing voters want investments in clean energy, not new taxes or regulations.
If I were a Republican, I'd be relieved to have climate legislation to attack right about now...
We are nowwitnessing the inevitable entailment of putting pollution caps and climate at the center of the political proposition.
Everyone is all for capping carbon until it comes time to pay for it. Then it is a consumption tax and few politicians and voters are prepared to support it. It inevitably leads to a debate centered on the costs and regulations, not the social benefits of the policy.
The Apollo approach, which puts the immediate social and economic benefits - a clean energy economy, energy independence, new industries that can create good jobs - at the center of the debate and uses modest carbon price revenues to pay for it has always been vastly more robust to the kinds of political attacks that we are seeing this week. The debate becomes about whether or not we are going to make these investments in America's future - not whether or not we are willing to take our medicine in order to avoid the end of the world. But making this move requires more than simply swapping out the picture of the polar bear on the front page of your newsletter for a picture of a construction worker. It requires taking the investment agenda seriously and making it the central objective of policy.
The choice that greens and sympathetic policy makers will have in the coming months will be whether to move to this kind of plan B or accept a cap and trade bill that is likely to provide neither a very significant price signal nor any serious money for RD&D.
As I mentioned yesterday, some stark political lines are being drawn in the Senate on cap and trade legislation. The Thune Amendment had 89 members of the Senate going on record opposing any increases to electricity or gasoline prices as a result of cap and trade legislation. In the Senate yesterday another important amendment to the Budget Resolution was approved unanimously, 98-0, sponsored by Senator Ensign (R-NV), chair of the Republican Policy Committee. Here is its text:
To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation.
What does this amendment mean?
It means that money raised from cap and trade (or even a carbon tax) cannot lead to a net increase in the overall tax burden on the "middle class." What is "middle class"? According to Senator Ensign in a press release trumpeting the amendment, it includes those households earning less than $250,000 per year. Senator Ensign cites the President on this point, referring back to his campaign promises not to raise taxes on this group.
Politically and practically, this amendment could then mean that proponents of cap and trade will need to pursue an explicit "cap and dividend" approach with any such policy being tax neutral for those earning less than $250,000 per year. In other words, the costs of cap and trade will have to be fully borne by those earning above $250,000 per year. Some of the challenges of the distributional effects of cap and trade are discussed in recent CBO testimony (PDF). Whether or not legislation can be written that allows supporters to claim to have met the spirit of the Ensign Amendment, it is clear that the Amendment makes the political challenge that much more difficult.
The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:
To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.
What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or gasoline prices? The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.
The draft Markey-Waxman climate bill is proof that the green groups leading the climate charge won't fight for investments in clean energy technologies and a new energy economy. Instead, they'll throw these critical investments overboard to preserve precious regulations and an increasingly compromised "cap" on carbon.
As Beltway insiders have repeatedly "reminded" me, this is "just
a discussion draft," and its final form may be much different. But just
looking at what's in this bill so far -- and just as important, what's not -- paints a clear picture of misplaced priorities and a bill in critical need of some "course correction."
Even a cursory read of this "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (ACES) -- and I've read far more of this 648 page bill than I'd like! -- speaks volumes to the priorities of the various parties driving this debate so far - namely the greengroups and big industry players already cutting deals as part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This bill should be proof, once and for all, these leading greens will throw clean energy investments overboard to preserve precious regulations and an increasingly compromised "cap" on carbon.
In the clearest indication yet that a climate strategy requiring a high price on carbon is doomed to political failure, the Senate voted 89-8 to preemptively reject any cap and trade bill that increases consumer energy prices.
Republicans deftly succeeded in calling greens and Democrats on their bluff that cap and trade won't cost anything, winning yesterday an 89 to 8 vote on a resolution stating that any climate legislation must not raise gasoline or electricity prices. The Senate vote is timed to coincide with yesterday's release of a climate bill "discussion draft" in the House (more on that bill from the Breakthrough Blog coming soon).
The implications of this vote are that just eight out of 100 senators believe, and have the courage of their convictions, to openly state that fossil fuel prices should rise to deal with climate change. That is to say, there are only eight senators who agree with Thomas Friedman, EDF, NRDC, David Leonhardt, AEI, and all the others who believe that the most important, and perhaps only thing we should do to combat climate change and drive clean energy innovation is to set a price on carbon.
In 2006 a retired software executive insisted to me that we had only 10 years to do something dramatic about climate change (because that's what James Hansen had told him). When I gently suggested that 10 years was not a scientific number but rather an arbitrarily political one, the executive accused me of being anti-science. But the funny thing is that in January of this year Hansen told the Guardian that we have only four years left for the U.S. to act -- coincidentally, the same length of time in Obama's first term in office.
The assumption behind all of it is that throwing out these numbers -- four years, 10 years, 350 ppm, etc. -- will provide the public and policy makers with a sense of urgency that global warming as an issue currently lacks. But there's no evidence to back up that assumptions. If any correlation were to be drawn, it would likely be the opposite, that the increasingly apocalyptic tone of those seeking action on climate change has resulted in an increasing number of voters (according to Gallup) who believe that the threat of global warming is being exaggerated.
In its most recent print edition, the Economist looks at what the stimulus and new increased funding at the DOE are doing to revitalize the agency and America's energy innovation capacity as a whole.
Americans desperate for cleaner, cheaper energy are looking more than ever to science and the breakthrough technologies that will be necessary to bring down the price of clean and renewable energy to a parity with existing, dirty technologies. And, while the desire has long been in place for something to supplant the old order of carbon technologies, the actual motor of change -- that is, the money -- has been in short supply.
Since the early 1980's, this desire manifest itself in rhetoric and little else. Now change has started to come to Washington, and now that we have in place a president who clearly understands the investment centered approach, the pragmatic question to ask is not if, but how soon? With Obama's guarantee of unprecedented investments in clean energy technology development will also come the onus on the scientific community -- particularly the innovators supported by the U.S. Department of Energy which will receive the bulk of these new investments -- to deliver real, commercially applicable solutions; and while the appropriation of funds signals a windfall of support that had previously only existed in nebulous rhetoric, the actual breakthrough technologies we are so desperately hedging the future of our economy (and also the greater world) on are still only glimmers in the mind's eye of a few brave and bold scientists.
In it's most recent edition, the Economist looks at what those familiar with the DOE are saying about this huge windfall of capital. The consensus seems to be: now is the time to stand up and deliver.
Breakthrough's director of energy and climate policy, Jesse Jenkins, speaks about climate policy and politics on a half hour radio segment that aired March 27th on KPFA radio in the Bay Area. Jenkins joins Clear Air Watch's Frank O'Donnell to discuss the hard realities of climate politics and outline a policy strategy to make clean energy cheap that can overcome these realities.
Listen to the archived segment as streaming audio here (only available through April 10, 2009):
Obama continues to hone his post-environmental case for an investment and innovation-focused clean energy agenda. Speaking today at the White House, the President again pledged major investments to spur the development of clean energy technologies, a call echoed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a separate event today at a national laboratory in New York.
Both speaking to the public today at separate events, President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu highlighted the administration's plans to make unprecedented investments in clean energy innovation.
Obama also promised a ten-year commitment to make the federal Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent in order to encourage greater private sector investment in the kind of innovation that truly drives long-term economic growth.
Investments in clean energy innovation offer the nation's "best strategy" for economic recovery and "the only route to the breakthrough technologies we need" to tackle the nation's pressing energy and climate challenge, says MIT President Susan Hockfield today, speaking at the White House
Investments in clean energy innovation offer the nation's "best strategy" for economic recovery and "the only route to the breakthrough technologies we need" to tackle the nation's pressing energy and climate challenge, said MIT President Susan Hockfield today at a speech delivered at the White House.
Hockfield, an outspokenchampion of clean energy innovation, spoke at the invitation of President Obama, who followed Hockfield's remarks with a speech outlining his plans to make unprecedented investments in clean energy technology and innovation.
"[S]ince World War II, by far the largest and most important source of US economic growth has been technological innovation, much of it springing from federally funded ... research," Hockfield said, echoing much of the work we've done at the Breakthrough Institute to advance public investments in clean energy innovation.
Facing both economic recession and pressing energy and climate challenges, clean energy innovation is critical, Hockfield argued:
"The R&D and technology investments that President Obama proposes have equally profound potential as an economic catalyst. That would be good news in any economy. But today, it provides a lifeline. ...
Not incidentally, these same investments [in energy innovation] also offer the only route to the breakthrough technologies we need to address the daunting challenges of energy security, rapidly accelerating energy demand and climate change."
In January, Teryn Norris and I cautioned about the "Danger of Green Stimulus" and called for "a shift from green jobs to a broader focus on green technology," a called echoed by Dr. Hockfield in the inspirational conclusion of her remarks:
"In hard times, America always invents its way to a brighter future. We have done it before, and we can do it again. For Americans out of work today, new "green jobs" will help. But for tomorrow, we need new green industries. And the only way to build those industries is by investing ambitiously now in basic and applied research."
Couldn't have said it better myself, Dr. Hockfield.
Since this is the thirdtime now we've highlighted Susan Hockfield's spot-on remarks at the Breakthrough Blog, I think it's time she joins Energy Secretary and Nobel laureate Dr. Stephen Chu and dons the (entirely unofficial) mantle of "Honorary Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow." Read on for her full remarks...
A high hurdle: of the 37 Senators identified as swing votes, all but seven must be convinced to vote "Yes" in order to secure passage of any climate policy in the U.S. Senate.
There's been a spate of recentpublicannouncements from moderate Democrats and Republicans alike, voicing caution about a proposed cap and trade program to place a price on carbon dioxide and cut global warming pollution. More than one third of the U.S. Senate now joins the fifteen moderate Democratic Senators we've dubbed the "Technology Fifteen" as vocal swing votes in the upcoming debate on climate policy.
Below the fold is an updated tally of where the Senate stands on climate policy by my assessment, based on recent public announcements and past voting histories. With using budget reconciliation to bypass the 60-vote filibuster hurdle off the table, to secure passage of any climate policy in the U.S. Senate, all but seven of the 37 Senators I identify as swing votes must be convinced to support the proposal (joining the 30 Senators I classify as "Assumed Yes" votes).
I provide the vote count below without further comment, and will delve into the implications of this tally in further detail in an upcoming post...
In a preview of the coming fight over cap and trade in Congress, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's carbon pricing plans are under fire from both Right and Left. He's stuck in a political dilemma that should be familiar to carbon pricing proponents everywhere: weaken his plan to secure passage but sacrifice environmental objectives, or strengthen it in line with Green demands and guarantee the plan's political failure. If only there were a way out of this dilemma...
It was with much fanfare and bravado that then-newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia announced at the 2007 Bali climate talks that his nation would abandon opposition to climate action and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Better late than never, Rudd said and bravely declared, "I can unite the world on climate."
To deliver on that bold promise, Rudd directed his ministers to put together a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on CO2. The outline of an Australian "Emissions Trading Scheme" was rolled out last week with plans to implement a cap and trade program in June 2010 aimed at cutting emissions 5 to 15 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.
Now, the Australian Prime Minister's efforts to put a price on carbon and cap emissions are under fire from both Right and Left, and cap and trade is going under Down Undah.
UN Climate Czar Yvo de Boer joins IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Obama Climate Envoy Todd Stern to offer a "reality check" before upcoming international climate negotiations.
It appears that there is an effort underway (whether coordinated or just coincident) from the Obama Administration, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and United Nations to place a reality check on expectations for United States climate policy progress in advance of the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
Yesterday, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told UK newspapers that Barack Obama would have a "revolution on his hands" if he tried to implement binding cuts in emissions on the scale that the IPCC's scientific consensus recommends.
"He [Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I'm going to reduce emissions by 30 per cent," Pachauri said. "He'll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step."
Pachauri's word's echo those of U.S. special climate envoy, Todd Stern, who recently stated that the 25-40% emissions cuts called for by the IPCC are "beyond the realm of the feasible" in the U.S. Congress. Stern called for a focus on "the art of the possible," saying "we need to be guided both by science and by common sense."
Just like the "Sputnik" generation committed itself to the Cold War and led the information technology revolution, today's generation must commit itself to the Terawatt Challenge and lead the global energy revolution.
The opportunity to advance transformative, progressive change has never been greater. Now, in the wake of the 2008 election and the historic Power Shift summit, young progressives have a unique opportunity to take a step back and look at the big picture: How can the we continue advancing bold solutions on energy and climate? What can young people do beyond energy and climate? And if national climate legislation succeeds, what's the next "Big Idea" for the progressive youth movement?
These are just some of the ideas we're exploring in a Special Breakthrough Issue - "After Power Shift: What's Next?" - to examine the next steps for the progressive youth movement. The issue will include contributions from some of the country's top young leaders throughout the week, and we hope you'll join the discussion. Here's our first piece to kick it off.
Over 12,000 young adults attended the recent Power Shift 2009 summit in Washington, DC. Their goal? Building the largest youth movement in decades to save the world from global warming.
Largely missing from Power Shift, however, was a critical group: young scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Maybe it was mid-terms. Perhaps the event seemed too political. Or maybe the summit recruited too many traditionally-defined "activists."
Whatever the cause, we have very little chance of overcoming climate change without enlisting young innovators at a drastically greater scale. Simply put, they represent one of the most important catalysts for creating a clean energy economy and achieving long-term prosperity.
The reason is this: at its core, climate change is a challenge of technology innovation. Over the next four decades, global energy demand will approximately double. Most of this growth will happen in developing nations as they continue lifting their citizens out of poverty and building modern societies. But over the same period, global greenhouse gas emissions must fall dramatically to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
Last Thursday, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu delivered groundbreaking Congressional testimony (testimony PDF) to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee about Obama's energy plan and what's necessary to create a clean energy economy:
"Our previous investments in science led to the birth of the semiconductor, computer, and bio-technology industries that have added greatly to our economic prosperity. Now, we need similar breakthroughs on energy. We're already taking steps in the right direction, but we need to do more...
Developing Science and Engineering Talent: Several years ago, I had the honor and privilege of working on the "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report commissioned by Chairman Bingaman and Senator Alexander. One of the key recommendations was to step up efforts to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. The FY 2010 budget supports graduate fellowship programs that will train students in energy-related fields. I will also seek to build on DOE's existing research strengths by attracting and retaining the most talented scientists.
Focusing on Transformational Research. The second area that I want to discuss is the need to support transformational technology research. What do I mean by transformational technology? I mean technology that is game-changing, as opposed to merely incremental...
Speeding Demonstration and Deployment: While we work on transformational technologies, DOE must also improve its efforts to demonstrate next-generation technologies and to help deploy demonstrated clean energy technologies at scale...
We will move forward on all of these fronts and more, as we invest in the transformational research to achieve breakthroughs that could revolutionize our Nation's energy future."
If you're looking closely at the public investments Obama plans to pair with his carbon pricing proposals, you've got to start worrying: if Obama remains committed to spending just $15 billion per year to spur a new energy economy, America will fail in that endeavor.
The public is overwhelmingly behind President Obama right now, and if he was elected with a mandate to do anything beyond stem the economic crisis, it was a mandate to build a new, clean energy economy that finally secures America's energy independence and averts potentially catastrophic climate change.
Yet once you start looking at the critical areas for public investment - research, development and demonstration, or RD&D; critical infrastructure, like a modernized electrical grid; deployment incentives to spur emerging technologies; and efficiency incentives, financing and other investments to retrofit American homes, businesses and factories - it's not hard to see why $15 billion per year is simply not up to the task.
The American Recovery and Investment Act agreed upon by the Senate and House Conference Committee contains $61.9 billion in energy-related public spending as well as tax credits and bond provisions expected to cost $20 billion over ten years.
The House of Representatives approved the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act today, by a vote of 246-186. Not a single Republican joined Democrats in approving this version of the bill, which was the product of long negotiations between leadership in both the House and Senate, as well as a block of centrist Senate Democrats and Republicans who have taken control of much of the debate on the stimulus.
The public investment numbers in the stimulus have bounced around during the countless negotiations, so if you've been following this crazy game at home (all twelve of you), here's our detailed summary, provided without further comment, of the energy-related investments and tax provisions in the conference version of the stimulus.
Assuming the block of centrist Senators remains supportive, this will be the version passed into law by the Senate soon, as early as later this evening. Keep in mind that all spending will be spread out over roughly two years.
Chu says "second industrial revolution" needed in energy technology. Calls for Nobel-level "breakthroughs" in biomass, batteries and solar power to offer "better choices" in fight to overcome energy and climate challenges.
In a candid conversation with reporters yesterday, newly-confirmed Energy Secretary Dr. Stephen Chu called for "a second industrial revolution" in energy technology to overcome the world's energy and climate challenges.
Sounding like an honorary Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow, Dr. Chu said solving these pressing challenges would require Nobel-level "breakthroughs" in at least three core energy technologies: advanced batteries for vehicles, new crops for biomass energy, and solar panels cheap enough to deploy without subsidy.
We must work hard to turn centrism from a refuge for misers and penny pinchers into a platform for those who believe in good returns on wise investments.
After the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in the lower chamber of Congress with absolutely no support from House Republicans two weeks ago, it was hard to predict what shape the debate would take in the Senate. But with perspective, the course of the Senate debate offers lessons for how we could secure investments in making clean energy cheap, and transform American politics in the process.
Just as it seemed that debate over the stimulus might stall, Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, and Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine took the lead in an effort to bring a centrist approach to the bill in order to secure bipartisan support. What came out of this effort is a bill that slashes necessary and fast acting stimulus in the form of aid for state budgets and money for education, among other spending measures, while expanding tax cuts that will help the more affluent disproportionately to middle and lower class Americans.
The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.
It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors (some trained as scientists) can no longer avoid the reality that targets for stabilization such as 450 ppm (or even less realistic targets) are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.
The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse. Let me explain.
NPR had a story today about the shifting conceptual paradigms of climate change and climate change solutions. Essentially a conversation with Dan Sarewitz, one of the leading thinkers studying innovation and technology policy, the piece gets at some fundamental truths regarding energy, society and the immense challenge of rebuilding the entire global energy system. The entire segment is about 4 and half minutes, and I would recommend listening to the entire thing. From the story:
Using energy "is really the metabolism of modern industrial society," [Sarewitz] says. "And changing that system is not about replacing a few technologies or advancing our level of efficiency along certain fronts."
It means creating a whole new basis for the global economy. Sarewitz is skeptical that politicians can deliberately manage a transformation of that scale, either through legislation or through climate treaties. He says, for starters, measures that will ultimately force everyone to pay more for energy are doomed both economically and politically.
"Politically, what you're asking people to do is to pay a huge upfront cost for benefits many decades down the road that they can't even anticipate or predict. And that is politically an extremely difficult sort of situation to manage," Sarewitz says.
...
"The economic dislocation that would be created by getting to that sort of level would absolutely be immense," he says. "And it's easy to be casual about that or it's easy to pin that kind of argument on conservative Republicans or on the executives of oil corporations, but nevertheless it is absolutely true you would be talking about something that would be destabilizing to global economies."
So, for those who care about the future of the climate, that's our test: if we want climate policy passed in the US, we need to convince the "Technology Fifteen" that (a) our policy proposal is actually good for their states' economies (rhetoric aside), (b) the costs of compliance are manageable and contained, (c) it will invest heavily in clean energy technology development and deployment, and (d) it will not disproportionately impact different states.
When it comes to the geography of climate politics, it doesn't break down along the much-ballyhooed "red state/blue state" divide. It's really more about coal states vs. clean states, as John Broder reports in yesterday's New York Times. That's a rift that risks dividing Senate Democrats as climate policies move forward in the 111th Congress.
Pelosi's remarks seem to point to a new frame for energy politics which is focused on driving technology innovation and deploying low-carbon technologies.
Yesterday, in an article in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hometown paper, the San lFrancisco Chronicle, arguably the second-most-powerful person in the country made a significant break from carbon pricing orthodoxy in remarks she made on future cap-and-trade legislation.
"I believe we have to [pass a cap-and-trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue," she said, noting that proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases. "Cap-and-trade is there for a reason. You cap and you trade so you can pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables."
This description of the reasons for enacting a cap-and-trade scheme is a remarkable--and laudable--shift in climate legislation discourse. Speaker Pelosi's remarks show an increased understanding of the importance of technology investment in reducing carbon emissions and securing energy independence.
If lawmakers who care about climate change want to achieve anything meaningful politically this year, they must ask themselves one fundamental question: will it pass the Recovery Test?
According to Talking Points Memo, GOP lawmakers are already laying the groundwork for efforts to delay climate legislation that could be introduced into Congress in 2009. As the GOP's strategy becomes clearer, so to do certain fundamental political truths likely to rule Washington politics for the coming year and beyond.
According to TPM, Republicans are laying seeds of dissent and dissatisfaction regarding Obama's new senior aide for energy and the environment, former Clinton-era EPA head Carol Browner:
"By holding up Jackson and Sutley [Obama's nominees for EPA chief and head of the Council on Environmental Quality], Senate Republicans are doing more than just signaling their discontent that they won't get to question and vote on Browner -- although Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) suggests to the Times that Browner be called in for a "quasi-confirmation" hearing. They're previewing their strategy to knock down the climate regulation bill that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), environment committee chairman, will release later this year.
Here's how it might look: After Boxer's climate bill emerges, Republicans would immediately protest the involvement of Browner, a White House adviser who was never fully vetted by the Senate."
If you accept that making clean energy cheap should be the primary objective for climate policy, you become largely indifferent about the revenue stream for public technology investments.
As the prospects for high carbon pricing and cap and trade continue to diminish in the midst of a severe economic recession, some climate advocates are beginning to wonder: is there any alternative? In a recent op-ed we wrote for the Huffington Post, we argued:
Despite Obama's appointments, climate advocates are thus left to worry: is Obama really prepared to expend his political capital championing a policy that will increase U.S. energy prices in the midst of a recession?
Not likely. Until recently Obama voiced support for carbon regulation, declaring at a governors' climate conference in mid-November that his climate agenda "will start with a federal cap and trade system." But since then, as the recession has deepened, he has said little to nothing about cap and trade...
A serious alternative to cap and trade would focus on making clean energy cheap, prioritizing major, sustained public investments to drive down the price of green technologies as quickly as possible. This would require federal investments on the scale of $500 billion over the next decade to support and accelerate each stage of the energy innovation pipeline: research, development, demonstration, and deployment.
Matthew Yglesias, an author and writer at the Center for American Progress, addressed this issue directly in a post yesterday titled "No Alternative," where he argued there is no better alternative to carbon pricing:
The Council on Foreign Relations ran a top story on their homepage today, "Climate Policy in the Age of Obama," that mentioned a recent op-ed by Jesse Jenkins and me in the opening paragraph.
The global economic decline has tempered hopes of swift international action on climate change, yet many climate advocates do expect the Obama administration to help boost long-stalled international climate talks (PDF). The announcement of the president-elect's energy and environment team (WSJ) last month reinforced this belief. Among the nominees is Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist and advocate for alternative energy. Chu underscored his concern about climate change and the need for energy efficiency in Senate testimony on January 13. Yet some advocates are worried. "All is well on the climate front, it seems. Except that it's not," write Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank. They warn that President-elect Barack Obama could take the "politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy." During the campaign, Obama pledged to use green technologies and renewable energy as a jobs engine, but he also has pledged to mandate a cap-and-trade program.
As if you needed another sign of the political challenges facing a climate strategy centered around dramatically increasing the price of fossil fuels, here you have Dr. Chu, who understands the urgency of the climate challenge better than just about anyone, apparently recognizing that increasing energy prices during a recession just isn't going to happen.
Confirmations were held today for Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL). Chu, a clean energy expert, is well known for turning the Berkeley Lab into a center of clean energy and efficiency innovation, forging the Berkeley Lab-British Petroleum partnership, sitting on the Copenhagen Climate Council, and winning a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997.
Suffice it to say that Chu has a deep and nuanced grasp of the many variables and drivers that contribute to global warming and he understands the scale of the challenge as well as anyone. As an administrator at LBNL, Dr. Chu worked to secure increased funding for research in clean energy and efficiency. And as an academic, Chu was able to speak candidly--and in fact, quite bluntly--about energy and climate issues.
Not any more! Dr. Chu has arrived inside the Beltway now, and already his tone is changing...
On January 21st, immediately after assuming office, Barack Obama's first priority will be passing an economic stimulus package that will provide the economic kick-in-the-pants necessary to avoid the next Great Depression. There's nearly unanimous consensus that a major stimulus investment is needed to stave off economic disaster. How the next administration plans to fit this stimulus into a larger economic revitalization plan, however, is still unclear.
So far, there's plenty of focus on traditional methods of stimulus: tax cuts to spur consumer spending and traditional infrastructure investments to rebuild roads and bridges. Unfortunately, a short-term focus on roads and rebates won't be enough to stave off a new depression or put our economy back on track. Instead, we must focus on investments that can both act as short-term stimulus and improve the long-term productivity of the US economy. And that means investing in innovation.
As Janet Rae-Dupree wrote in the New York Times on Saturday:
It is heartening to see the New York Times leading the way in this shifting discourse while placing public investment in its rightful place as a core solution to climate change.
The New York Times editorial board, including respected environmental writer Bob Semple, broke from its past focus on carbon pricing as the primary solution to climate change in an editorial about Obama's newly announced energy and climate team. The piece praised Energy Secretary-designate Dr. Steven Chu for his views on the climate challenge:
"What sets [Chu] apart is his fierce conviction that innovation is just as important as regulation, and that big energy problems, like climate change and the world's dependency on fossil fuels, will not be solved without major private and public investment in the development and deployment of nonpolluting technologies."
The article demonstrates the enormous challenges policymakers face in attempting to raise energy prices for industry and consumers, as well as the corruption and unintended consequences that could plague a similar policy system here in the United States.
The New York Times ran a landmark article today, "Money and Lobbyists Hurt European Efforts to Curb Gases," about the failure of cap and trade in Europe. It should be required reading for anyone concerned about climate change policy in the United States and abroad. It opens with this:
The European Union started with a high-minded ecological goal: encouraging companies to cut their greenhouse gases by making them pay for each ton of carbon dioxide they emitted into the atmosphere.
But that plan unleashed a lobbying free-for-all that led politicians to dole out favors to various industries, undermining the environmental goals. Four years later, it is becoming clear that system has so far produced little noticeable benefit to the climate -- but generated a multibillion-dollar windfall for some of the Continent's biggest polluters.
As President-elect Barack Obama considers how to curb the gases that contribute to global warming, Europe's struggle with the problem illustrates the momentous task ahead for the United States.
The piece comes after the GAO just released a highly critical study of the use of offsets in Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme and amidst the chaotic climate negotiations at Poznan, where several European nations are balking at strict emissions caps. It also comes only a few weeks after President-elect Barack Obama pledged his support for cap and trade at a major climate conference in California.
Last week in response to Michael and Ted's piece in The American Prospect, Bradford Plumer at The New Republic's "The Vine" wrote a piece called "Should We Forget About Carbon Pricing? (No.)" The post, which mischaracterizes the stances Michael and Ted take in the Prospect piece, also propagates the myth of successful emissions reductions in Europe.
"Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have yet another essay arguing that environmentalists should abandon all hope of trying to cap or tax carbon emissions, and instead focus solely on subsidizing clean-energy sources if they want to avert drastic global warming.
...Simply having the Energy Department dole out $50 billion per year to clean-energy producers (as Nordhaus and Shellenberger suggest) will pale beside the amount of private-sector money that will flow to alternative energy and efficiency improvements if carbon is priced properly."
This characterization of S&N's positions in The American Prospect and the Breakthrough Institute in general is a strawman.
Henry Waxman (D-CA) defeated long-time Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D-MI), winning the gavel of the influential committee in a 137-122 vote of the House Democratic Caucus.
Representative Henry Waxman of California defeated Representative John Dingell of Michigan in the battle for the gavel of the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee today.
Over the past two weeks, the two senior Democrats waged one of the most hotly contested challenges for committee chairmanship in recent Congressional history. Waxman was announced the victor today after a 137-122 vote of the full House Democratic Caucus, ending Dingell's nearly 28 year reign as Chair of the committee, which has jurisdiction over several key issues, including energy, interstate commerce and health care.
Breakthrough Institute is hosting an essay competition to answer the question: What will it take to reinvent the American auto industry? We will publish the best responses on our home page, www.thebreakthrough.org. Please submit your op-eds to oped@thebreakthrough.org.
In 2005, with GM and Ford teetering perilously close to bankruptcy, the Breakthrough Institute created the Healthcare for Hybrids proposal with Senator Barack Obama, Representative Jay Inslee, and the Center for American Progress, a plan which would have linked fuel-economy increases to relieving health care costs for U.S. automakers. Today, with the industry again on the brink of collapse, we invite you to join us is exploring a new question for the new era:
What will it take to reinvent the American auto industry?
We will publish the best responses on our home page, www.thebreakthrough.org. Please submit your op-eds to oped@thebreakthrough.org and paste or type your content into the body of the message; please do not send attachments.
As we enter a new economic and political era, we face an extraordinary opportunity to advance long-term investments in our economic future and build a new economic governance model to drive American growth, competitiveness, and leadership in the 21st century.
The good news: an elite consensus is crystallizing around the need for massive economic stimulus funded by deficit spending. Hundreds of economists are calling for stimulus on the scale of 2-3 percent of GDP -- or $300-500 billion per year, equivalent to the expected decline in U.S. consumption as a result of the housing market collapse -- to confront the recession head-on.
The bad news: this growing consensus may only support short-term stimulus investments - such as aid to state and local governments, extended unemployment benefits, and rebate checks - without any long-term economic strategy. Infrastructure spending is gaining support, but mostly for proposals that have already been planned and scheduled. Given the increasingly dim prospects for long-term U.S. competitiveness, it's critical that we think smart and act quickly to secure our economic future. As Harvard Business School guru Michael Porter put it in last week's BusinessWeek cover story:
This week, we'vebeenwriting about President-elect Barack Obama's powerful mandate to build a new, clean energy economy and revitalize our nation's ailing economy. A new post-election poll from Zogby Interactive confirms that Americans overwhelmingly view new investments in clean energy as critical to revitalizing America's ailing economy.
The poll found that more than three out of four voters - 78% - support clean energy investments to revitalize the economy, with 50% saying they strongly agree that clean energy investment is vital to the nation's economic future.
This is the second post in a continuing series delving into Barack Obama's opportunity to capture this political moment and provide a direction for energy policy and economic growth in the 21st century.Part 1 is here.
As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of President-elect of the United
States of America, we are witnessing an historic realignment of the
American political landscape. With the election of our nation's first
African-American president, record voter turnout, and a dramatically
redrawn electoral map, it seems that anything is possible now.
However, while Obama clearly has a new mandate to lead our nation,
electoral mandates are fickle and even this one could fade in time.
President-elect Obama has just 76 days to prepare for his inauguration.
Then the real work of governing will begin, and what Obama decides to
do in his first 100 days will either cement or erase the wave of
popular support the President-elect rides today.
His job won't be easy. On January 20th, President-elect Obama will
inherit the White House along with a plethora of pressing challenges
all competing for his attention. There will be no time for baby steps,
and President Obama must show bold and effective leadership right out
of the gate. Furthermore, while the economic crisis will remain his top
concern in the short-run, Obama cannot afford to ignore longer-term
challenges and must develop synergistic solutions that can tackle
multiple problems at once.
Thankfully, Barack Obama has stated that building a new energy
economy will be his top priority upon assuming office. If he fully
integrates this effort with his shorter-term economic stimulus plans,
Obama could effectively tackle several priorities - economy recovery,
energy security, and global warming - simultaneously. And getting this
job done right could cement Obama's electoral mandate and pave the way
for a truly transcendent presidency.
Invest in a new energy system that will provide economic growth, increase national and economic security by reducing the amount we spend annually on foreign oil and take steps to mitigate climate change. These types of strategic investments could be the hallmark of Obama's domestic policy.
The election of Barack Obama, an African American liberal with a Muslim middle name, will be remembered for generations as a historic moment in American history. Made possible by the financial crisis and economic recession, President-elect Obama will enter the White House in January of next year with a mandate to take bold action to revive the global economy and put American on the path to economic greatness.
It's hard to believe today, but back in early September, it looked like Barack Obama would lose. Senator John McCain was pulling away in national tracking polls as the chant, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" echoed across the nation. Record high gas prices were the top issue of the campaign, and as Republicans' united around a clear, powerful (yet disingenuous) call for expanded oil drilling, Democrats, including Obama, fumbled for a response.
Liberal consensus is beginning to form around the need to increase deficit spending in 2009 in order to help the economy as November 4th draws closer and large Democratic majorities in both houses look inevitable. Liberals and other leftists might be ready to spend, but what about those moderate Democrats who so often make a name for themselves as deficit hawks?
It has taken astoundingly little time for elite consensus to build around the federal deficit. Those who don't actively advocate deficit spending like Robert Reich have at least agreed that now is not the time to try and shrink the deficit. With the financial sector close to collapse, unemployment rising and credit frozen, it has become increasingly important for the government to continue to spend, not only to extend unemployment insurance, but also for things like the bailout and a second round of economic stimulus.
In fact, some organizations whose core principle is to advocate for a balanced federal budget have even ceded the point:
Back before Wall Street was burning, Main Street was already feeling the heat from another very real economic crisis: the soaring price of oil. The credit crisis and our slowing economy have driven oil prices down and the energy crisis out of our minds, for now. But that doesn't mean the threat - to our economy and our quality of life - is gone. If we ever want our economy to truly recover, we'd be wise not to forget the other economic crisis.
I know it's hard to remember, given the events of the past weeks, but back before Wall Street was burning, Main Street was already feeling the heat from another very real economic crisis: the soaring price of oil.
The credit crisis and our slowing economy have driven oil prices down from historic highs. As stocks plummeted in the past two weeks, so to did the price of crude, falling by more than half, down from it's July record of over $140 to under $70 this week. That's the lowest price in fourteen months, but it's still three times higher than it was just six years ago, and prices are still over $3.00 a gallon across the nation.
Still, as prices at the pump have receded and the focus on the banking bailout bumped "Drill Baby, Drill!" out of the presidential election spotlight, the energy crisis is now out of most of our minds. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the threat - to our economy and our quality of life - is gone. Oil prices will rise again - they are already inching up again amidst news of a likely OPEC cutback in production - and when they do, they'll continue to drag down our struggling economy. If we ever hope to see real economic recovery, we would be wise not to forget the other crisis that contributed to today's ailing economy.
I'll delve into this more next week, but for now, enjoy the new article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine (online here) by Roger Lowenstein, entitled "What's Really Wrong With the Price of Oil," which takes a close look at the temporarily forgotten but very real threat oil prices pose to our economic wellbeing. Excerpts below the fold...
Our sometimes blinding focus on emissions caps and carbon prices can obscure the critical technology innovation challenge that lies at the heart of our quest for climate stability (and continued and expanded global prosperity). In the face of a rapidly shifting political climate, it would be a tragedy to hold any one solution to this core challenge hostage to any other.
Eric Pooley's recent piece in Slate, "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," sparked a lot of discussion and thought here at Breakthrough. Pooley is right that climate advocates would be best served finding a "Trojan horse" to advance climate solutions within an economic recovery framework. But his recommendations that the next president advance a cap and trade program sparked both my response, "Can Cap and Dividend Really Save the Economy or the Planet?" and a round table discussion with several climate and policy experts on the opportunities and challenges for new U.S. administration.
I invited Pooley to respond to my post, which was highly critical of the political chances of a Cap and Dividend scheme in today's political and economic climate. Below the fold you'll find our continued dialog on the political challenges and opportunities facing climate advocates in the coming year.
As responses to Michael and Ted's LA Times op-ed surface, it is clear that the climate change community is in a state of denial and ignorance about the import of the summer's energy debate, and the challenges and opportunities it has created.
In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, the New Republic's environment and energy blog, The Vine published a post entitled, "The Green Bubble Hasn't Burst," by Dayo Olopade. This piece misses the thrust of Ted and Michael's argument, and, in an effort to counter it, proves them right.
Working backwards, my first objections with this post come at the end:
"I've argued that the derided June bill [the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act], which won 48 votes in the Senate, was clearly a two steps forward, one step back situation, and a good step forward at that."
A clean energy economic stimulus plan could truly be climate advocates' "Trojan horse," as columnist Eric Pooley writes. But NOT if they follow Pooley's advice about how to formulate that plan and advance a full-on, economy-wide Cap and Dividend program next year.
The economy is all that matters now, and climate advocates - and the
next President - would be wise to develop a strategic "Trojan horse" to
advance their ecological goals within the framework of economic
recovery. That's the thesis of "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," an article appearing in Slate last week by Eric Pooley.
Pooley gets the political analysis right, accurately diagnosing the
potentially incurable political malady that dooms the chances of expansive
carbon regulation in today's economic climate. But when it comes time
to prescribe the remedy, Pooley is off-the-mark, arguing that a Cap and Dividend proposal is just what the doctor ordered.
Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Unfortunately, Pooley is not alone in his
prescribed solution, and it's time we took a close look at the
obstacles to climate action and see just how far Cap and Dividend gets
us (hint: it's not very far...)
A relatively small percentage of Americans strongly believe that climate change requires urgent action, according to a comprehensive survey conducted by a coalition of environmental groups, and opinion is strongly split along party lines.
Yesterday's E&E News PM (subscription) has an interesting article
about a new poll out on U.S. view of climate change, sponsored by a set
of environmental groups and consultants. It supports many arguments
that we have made here at Prometheus, such as the fact that support for
action on climate change is broad but shallow, the public generally
accepts a significant human role in climate change, and Al Gore has
played a big role in making the issue partisan (an even more
interesting finding because Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is a
sponsor of the poll). I don't have the poll yet, but have requested it.
Meantime, here is an excerpt from the E&E News PM story:
A group of moderate Democratic senators is organizing into a force to be reckoned with on climate legislation. Climate and energy advocates should be advised: climate legislation could be controlled by centrists in the 111th Congress, and real issues around cost-containment and tech deployment are far from resolved.
A group of moderate Senate Democrats are joining forces to take the lead in climate legislation next year. We originally dubbed the group the "Technology Ten" in June, when the centrist Democrats sent a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer indicating their reservations about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act that had just been voted down on the Senate floor.
The groups' concerns revolved around the effect of expansive climate change legislation on energy prices, and hence on energy consumers, businesses and manufacturing and the letter centered around the need for stronger cost-containment measures and greater investment in technology innovation and deployment -- hence the moniker "Technology Ten." That group has now grown to include sixteen Democratic senators, and they are redoubling their efforts to take charge of the global warming debate next year, according to a recent article in E&E Daily (via Climate Progress; $ubs required for E&E Daily).
Given the fact that the new gang of senators represents almost one third of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, the "Technology Sixteen" will be a force to be reckoned with in the coming year.
Scientific, economic and political realities at the end of 2008 fly in the faces of carbon-price advocates. As 2009 approaches, we must learn how to reduce carbon emsissions in a post-pricing world by learning what killed it in the first place.
Next January there will be a new President and Congress, and the American public will have at least a somewhat better idea of the success or failure of the bailout that passed last week. A multiplicity of variables, from the state of our economy, to the outcome of the election, to the nuclear program of Iran will affect the American political landscape heading into 2009. Over the next few months, tons of organizations and movements will begin to take stock of how these shifting variables might affect their missions and objectives. Few could benefit from this self-evaluation more than groups demanding federal action on climate change. The long time standard of these organizations, cap-and-trade, is becoming increasingly less relevant to today's political world.
The quest for a carbon price by these green groups met abject failure back in June with the failure of Lieberman Warner. As energy prices rise, our economy stumbles and credit shrinks, it seems less and less likely that hard caps on carbon will be a viable political vehicle. Carbon pricing orthodoxy has run headlong into political and economic realities in at least three major ways.
By passing a bill left for dead just weeks ago, today the U.S. House of Representatives decided the country actually ought to keep its burgeoning clean energy industry. But they didn't really mean to. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, the biomass/solar/hydropower PTC, and solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) got their one-, two- and eight-year extensions, respectively. But they only got passed by being strapped to today's bailout bill, as a "sweetener" to aid its passage.
So how, exactly, does the key federal policy supporting new energy become just another packet of Splenda slipped into a murky, half-caff bailout bill?
Romm revealed multiple flawed assumptions in his latest attack, but one stood out above all the rest. Despite all the empirical evidence, Joseph Romm believes global warming is a high public priority. Romm and other greens will continue to peddle this false belief at their peril.
Joe Romm, who runs the Climate Progress blog, has launched another set of hysterical attacks on the Breakthrough Institute, comparing Michael and Ted to Karl Rove for their latest LA Times op-ed.
With the election looming and energy policy taking center stage in the run up to November 4th, partisan politics are too heated to advance any real compromise energy bill, says the bipartisan Senate "Gang of 20."
Politico and E&E News both report that the Senate Gang of 10 20 agreed to punt on their "all of the above" energy proposal until after the election. With the election looming and energy policy taking center stage in the run up to November 4th, partisan politics are too heated to advance any real compromise, a spokesman for Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the group's leaders told E&E ($ub req.)
"The thinking here is that the partisanship in Congress is stifling the debate we need to have on this. It is just too close to the presidential elections," said spokesman [for Sen. Conrad], Chris Thorne. Instead, Thorne said, the group plans to release a "statement of understanding" next week and then push actual legislation at a later time.
On September 24th, power companies with carbon emitting plants in ten states up the northeast will participate in the first Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction for carbon credits. However, the price of carbon will probably not rise above the absolute floor price of $1.86. This effectively means that the "market signal" which will demonstrate the time to pour money into clean energy industries and technology will never arrive.
On September 25th, power companies with carbon emitting plants in ten states up the northeast (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine), along with financial institutions, environmental and other groups will participate in the first Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction for carbon credits. This regional cap-and-trade program will go into effect on January 1st of next year, holding carbon emissions to 188 million tons annually until 2014, and then scaling emissions back 2.5 percent every year until 2018.
However, it seems that the forces behind RGGI have learned little from Europe's three year old Emission Trading Scheme. Unlike the ETS, RGGI will be auctioning almost all permits, instead of issuing the vast majority, as the ETS did. However, RGGI has its own pitfalls. The cap of 188 million tons was set in 2004, based on projections by energy experts and political pressure from utilities to keep the cap at or above current emissions levels. However, the projected 188 million tons was based on assumptions that carbon emissions would increase, but after 2006 they actually began to decrease due to more mild weather and a slowing economy.
When Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House passes a pro-drilling bill, you're looking at nothing less than a political earthquake. We're witnessing a fundamental realignment of the energy debate. Energy policy is now about bread and butter issues: jobs, economic growth and energy prices. Can clean energy and climate advocates adapt to the new political landscape?
Republicans successfully capitalized on the changing energy landscape to advance an expanded oil drilling agenda, pushing Democrats back with cries of "Drill Baby, Drill!" and seizing control of the energy debate for the first time since the 2006 election.
Democrats won a tactical victory yesterday, passing a true "all of the above" energy bill out of the House that authorizes expanded oil drilling and creates new renewable energy production requirements for electric utilities. Pelosi and the House Democrats forced all but 15 Republicans to vote No on a pro-drilling bill, calling their empty "we support an all of the above energy strategy" bluff.
But make no mistake: while this was a tactical win, when Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House passes a pro-drilling bill, you're looking at nothing less than a political earthquake. We're witnessing a fundamental realignment of the energy debate.
Yesterday, House Democrats pulled off a tactical victory in the energy debate over Republicans. But it is just that: a tactical victory in a political battle in which the Republicans set all the conditions. Setting a proactive agenda that responds to the electorate and provides a new vision for a new century will establish the Democrats as the party with real leadership for the 21st century. And the way to get started is with energy.
Royalty reform to ensure that oil companies are paying for the land that they lease from the government
Tax subsidy repeals on the "big five" oil companies, along with closing other loopholes to make sure oil companies are paying their fair share
Releasing almost 10 percent of the strategic petroleum reserve to help drive down gas prices at the pump
Extended and expanded tax incentives for renewable electricity and energy generation, energy efficient homes, buildings and appliances, and incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
Taking royalties from decade old drilling leases and invest in clean energy and energy efficiency technologies
A mandate for utilities to be providing 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020
And, the kicker: expresses the sense of congress that the Renewable Fuel Standard should ensure that every region can be a producer of cellulosic biofuels from a vast array of feedstocks.
Greens entered the summer thinking they could count on a Democratic majority in two houses to pass serious global warming legislation. Three months later they are in a period of reckoning that they seem only now to be awakening to.
The energy debates over the summer, coupled with the current presidential election campaign, have shifted the political landscape in America remarkably. Just three months ago, the democratic leadership was firmly in the green camp when it came to offshore drilling.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration..."
In fact, things were looking bright for greens, who felt confident in their ability to move new climate legislation--the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act--through both houses of congress due to a democratic party that had finally warmed up to taking action on global warming. The summer of 2008 looked like it might finally be the era greens had been waiting for.
But things started going downhill on the first Friday of June when L-W failed to even get cloture and make it past debates. Gas prices were already starting their climb to the far side of four dollars, and it was clear to Dems that if they didn't want to be ousted in November, they couldn't enact legislation that would raise gas (and electricity and heating) prices even further.
As soon as the enviros advance new legislation that will raise consumers' energy prices at a time when that is the biggest political non-starter in America, they will lose their seat in the pivotal political discussion that could determine the direction of America's energy policy for decades.
The plan for House Democrats to introduce a catch-all energy package that calls for renewable energy mandates, efficiency standards and new oil industry tax provisions in addition to expanding offshore drilling has become a highly anticipated Democratic victory. The strategy is to force Republicans to vote "nay" to offshore drilling because they cannot agree to aggressive renewable mandates and increased taxes on oil companies. Many moderate leftists would call this plan "savvy," and the big greens, sensing an opportunity to reach regular voters, have come out in support of drilling as part of a larger energy plan that will reduce energy prices in the near and long term.
It's good to see enviros meeting citizens where they're at, not to mention showing the good sense to react when they see that voters are naming energy as one of the top three issues of the campaign and facing the country. As (bipartisan) consensus around the need to frame a new energy policy builds, it is becoming clear that great strides forward in forming an energy plan for our era could be taken in the next few months, possibly even in the first 100 days of the next presidency. The greens, by signing on to this new "all of the above" plan, are insuring their seat at the table for the discussion.
The Democrats recently announced they plan to bring the energy debate back to their corner when they return from recess next week. They, too, will embrace an "All of the Above" strategy. But is it focused on what truly matters when it comes to energy policy in 2008?
The Republicans have been pounding the Democrats on energy policy so far this summer, effectively adopting an "All of the Above" approach (at least in terms of their messaging) to solving our energy price woes. The Democrats' responses, on the other hand, have failed to frame the debate on their terms, instead offering scattered solutions and saying "no!" to the Republicans' plans.
The Democrats, however, announced they plan to take back the debate as they return from recess next week and head into the fall. According to Congressman Markey (D-MA), they will deploy a counter-strategy capable of doing "a political reverse takedown on the Republicans."
The Democrats will test the Republicans with their own "All of the Above" strategy that will embrace offshore drilling as it calls for a renewable energy mandate, energy-efficiency measures for buildings, and oil industry tax provisions.
As the Republicans chew on that, I also have to wonder if the Democrats are really paying attention, once again, to what truly matters when it comes to energy policy in 2008.
It's not just about framing--"new energy jobs" are the best and only shot at bringing down the political impasse between America and the energy policy it needs.
The effort to pass a sensible climate and energy policy is not working. I don't just mean we're not getting the right content in legislation--whether it's trading or taxing or new investment. I want to face facts: right now there isn't serious political support, or even interest, for an "energy bill" with climate change solutions at its heart. Not from most Democrats in Congress, and not from the vast majority of Americans, whose support is desperately needed by us climate and clean energy advocates.
This can be our crucial moment--a point of deep popular unrest over energy hikes and economic decline. In the self-righteous furor of "drill here, now" and in the sparring over loafers and houses, we see a political establishment desperate to connect with a distrustful electorate. At this sudden crossroads, both we and the defenders of the fossil economy have an incredible opportunity to define the way ahead. So now, we can't spend one more day still trying to convince 41% of America to come to our 10% side. We have to go to them, and meet them where they're at.
Energy is the number one issue of the 2008 presidential election and it is taking center stage at both parties' conventions this week and next. Republicans have been able to effectively capture this issue and run with it, bringing the American people with them and leaving Democrats in the dust. It is not, however, game over for Democrats. The American public is all ears for what the Democrats will say at their convention this week, and if they find the right message they will garner significant voter support.
Breaking news! Energy is still the number one issue of the 2008 presidential election and it is taking center stage at both parties' conventions this week and next. So far this election season, Republicans have been able to effectively capture this issue and run with it, bringing the American people with them and leaving Democrats in the dust.
The Republicans are winning an energy debate set entirely on their terms. They have been enjoying the strong voter support that accompanies an "all of the above" energy strategy, even if their message is only full of empty promises. Democrats, conversely, have been entirely left behind as they have struggled to find their voice in the debate and been hammered for being unable to restrain energy prices.
With Americans focused on energy prices as never before, a game-changing shift is occurring in the American political climate. The time has come for climate and clean energy advocates to adopt a new strategy and policy agenda. Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on global warming. The moment is far too urgent to fall on our swords for a cap-and-trade agenda developed in an entirely different political environment.
All of this paints a very clear picture of where Americans are at: they
are focused on their pocketbooks, grimacing every time they head to the
gas station to fill 'er up.
This new focus on energy prices is a game changer for the world of energy and climate policy.
T. Boone Pickens advocates a massive investment in wind power as a way to get off foreign oil, but in a new video segment he says we should "drill, drill, drill." Progressives and environmentalists were tentatively accepting the oil-man turned wind-champion as an ally in the quest for more renewable en
