It\’s Getting Hot In Here

Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

Advocates of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, or “ACES” for short) argue that the bill is far more than just a climate bill. It’s a comprehensive piece of clean energy, efficiency and climate legislation, and taken as a whole, they argue, it should be considered transformational — even if the cap and trade portion of the bill may have been significantly weakened (see Breakthrough’s detailed analysis of the ACES cap and trade program here).

The ACES bill does indeed include many provisions to set a new course for our nation’s energy policy, including efficiency standards and regulations, authorization for new programs aimed at modernizing the nation’s electricity infrastructure and paving the way for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and a national renewable electricity standard. Many of these will move America in the right direction.

But the question remains: will ACES really be transformational? And will it propel American quickly away from business as usual and towards the prosperous clean energy economy and dramatic emissions reductions we need?

Breakthrough’s team has taken a close look at the bill’s cap and trade provision, and discovered that the combination of offset provisions and a little-known provision called the “strategic reserve pool” could allow U.S. emissions to greatly exceed the supposed emissions “cap” set by the legislation.

Here we examine one of the other major provisions of the ACES bill, the national renewable electricity standard (RES) established by Title I of the bill. Unfortunately, our analysis concludes that the RES has been severely weakened since initially proposed in the discussion draft version of the ACES bill; as it now stands, the RES may barely increase U.S. renewable electricity generation compared to business as usual projections.
Continue reading ‘Climate Bill’s Renewable Electricity Standard Severely Weakened; May Have Little to No Impact’

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established in 1992 to ensure effective follow-up to the Earth Summit by reviewing progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, Rio, Johannesburg, etc. To meet this mandate, the CSD convenes on an annual basis in 2-year thematic cycles, the first year to gather data, case studies, and related info, and the second year to draft policy that will guide development solutions that address these thematic challenges. This year, May 4th-15th, was the 17th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-17); a policy year addressing the themes of Agriculture, Rural Development, Desertification, Land Use, and Africa.

This was my fourth time participating in a CSD conference, and each time I notice this – it is extremely difficult to discuss sustainability, a concept defined most fundamentally by interrelationships, within a framework that compartmentalizes its issues into thematic clusters (ie. agriculture, rural development, . . . climate change, energy . . . water, human settlements, etc.). Certainly each of these themes warrants its own debates, research, and policy recommendations. It is also true that each CSD conference has an “interlinkages” working group with an objective to address the interrelationships between the themes being discussed. My point, however, is that there are interrelationships between themes of previous years, and years ahead even, that should not be left out of the conversations simply to conform to the organizational structure of the Commission. I bring this up not to complain, but to set the stage for the purpose of this blog – to highlight the important relationships between Agriculture and Climate Change that were overlooked at CSD-17.
Continue reading ‘Climate Change and Agriculture at CSD-17′

For many of us who have been in the climate activism loop for several years, the time of our entry into serious activism was marked by a growing public awareness over the link between oil and the wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the hand Big Oil played in writing the Bush/Cheney energy policy.  In the last years of the Bush Administration, the focus of many environmentalists shifted subtly from oil to coal, which contributes even more than oil to global warming.  Now, at the dawn of the Obama Administration, coal maintains its well-deserved reputation as Climate Enemy #1; but tar sands development, oil shale mining, and other newly-emerged branches of the oil industry give even King Coal a run for his money.

The struggles of communities confronting the oil and coal industries are fitting banners for our movement; they show just how far the abuses of the fossil fuel giants will go.  However, in this new political atmosphere in which serious proposals for climate protection are at least being considered in Congress (though always watered down by industry), and in which Big Oil (though still hugely influential) is no longer directly advising the Executive Branch on global warming science, the time has come to ask ourselves: just what are we willing to settle for?  The most polluting and environmentally destructive of industry practices must go—even a few individuals in the Halls of Power are beginning to see that.  But if we are really going to achieve, in the words of the Cascade Climate Declaration, a “Sustainable, just, and prosperous future for all,” then we need to go much further.  And this means focusing our attention on a fossil fuel that, for most of us, hasn’t traditionally drawn the spotlight: natural gas.

Even environmental groups have traditionally regarded natural gas as a lesser evil when compared to oil or, especially, coal.  When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the Capitol Power Plant in DC would move quickly off coal and substitute natural gas as the fuel of choice, it was hailed by many as a victory for the climate.  But, as the Center for Biological Diversity points out, “the Capitol Power Plant’s switch won’t get our planet far on the road to reducing our atmospheric carbon levels below the necessary 350 parts per million.”  Ordinary natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal; but that takes us only halfway to where we need to be.

In contrast to much of the rest of the country, where concerns about natural gas have taken a backseat to Big Oil and King Coal, the topic is much hotter in my own Pacific Northwest.  It’s here that the third fossil fuel is attempting perhaps its most serious new inroads on the US energy economy.  And it’s materialized in natural gas’ dirtiest, most environmentally destructive form: Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG. Continue reading ‘The Third Fossil Fuel: Or, What are We Willing to Settle For?’

On April 17th, 2009, the Obama EPA announced that it was proposing to find carbon dioxide (and five other heat trapping gases) a danger to human health.  While this might seem self-evident to us, this is big news for the federal government because this is the first step in the process of EPA regulation.  In 2007 we celebrated the Mass vs. EPA decision when the Supreme Court ruled that global warming pollution poses a danger to human health and must therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  Under the Bush Administration we saw no action taken on this ruling.  But now, Obama has instructed Administrator Jackson and the EPA to move forward with the process of regulating carbon dioxide and other global warming causing pollutants.  Regulation is likely not the single silver bullet and must be used in combination with other policies such as investment.  Many consider this ruling a pressuring tactic to aid floundering climate legislation in Congress.  This ruling could also provide the foundation for a negotiating position at December’s UN Copenhagen climate talks.

From April 17th — June 23rd, the EPA is encouraging public comment.  They held two hearings for this purpose in Arlington, VA and Seattle WA on May 18th and 21st respectively.  I had the privilege of attending the Seattle hearing and rally, organized by a coalition of groups including the Sierra Student Coalition and Cascade Climate Network.   EPA reported that response to both hearings was “overwhelming.”

More than 2,000 people turned out in Seattle to support the EPA’s decision at the noon rally on the 21st.  Hundreds of children and students joined members of the faith, business, and environmental communities.  David Nokovic, freshman at Portland State University, spoke at the rally on behalf of the youth in attendance.   “We pledge to end this climate crisis within our lifetimes, because failing to do so is unconscionable,” said Nokovic.  “We pledge to hold ourselves and our elected officials accountable, and we pledge to work with all who will join us.”

All through the day, nearly 200 people testified and over 90% of that testimony was in favor of global warming pollutant regulation.  Over 25 youth gave compelling testimony to the panel of EPA representatives who heard 10 hours of testimony that day.  I myself, was on a panel with two industry lobbyists from the Washington Farm Bureau and two other youth… Continue reading ‘Youth Call for Just Regulation at Seattle EPA Hearing; more comments needed’

I know in these tough times of contemplation, ‘to support the bill… to support it not,’ some of us start to feel emotionally drained. The constant debate, ‘No we don’t want to compromise… but we need to pass something,’ makes many of us feel like we are betraying our ideals.

It is these times when we need to remember our collective strength, success, and know that no matter what happens we are on the side of right. Check out this great piece on Power Shift ’09  and take a moment to bask in the memory of what we did, the optimism we instilled, and the potential that exists and is begging to be released.

(Film by Michael Zeligs) Continue reading ‘Remember our Strength’

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) contains a provision that could allow U.S. global warming pollution to exceed the supposed emissions “cap” by 10 percent — and “make up” for these additional emissions by purchasing several billion more tons of carbon offsets.

Every climate bill, in the U.S. and abroad, contains provisions limiting how high carbon prices established by the policy can rise. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is no different. As the Breakthrough Institute previously reported, ACES would allow polluters to purchase up to 2 billion tons per year of relatively cheap carbon “offsets,” which could allow emissions in supposedly “capped” U.S. sectors to rise by up to 9% between 2005 and 2030. The EPA predicts that, largely due to the extensive use of offsets, carbon prices will remain less than $20 per ton of CO2 for the next decade.

Many proponents of ACES have argued that U.S. polluters will not utilize the 2 billion tons of authorized carbon offsets each year. The supply of credible offsets is limited, they say, and demand will eventually push their price above the cost of most alternative emission reduction strategies. (For now, let’s put aside the fact that those same price pressures — and the industries and sectors that stand to profit from selling more offsets — will also be a powerful force for establishing weaker offset certification standards.)

However, even in the case where affordable offsets are unavailable, and emission allowance prices rise, ACES contains an additional cost containment provision that could allow U.S. global warming pollution to exceed the supposed emissions “cap” — and “make up” for these additional emissions by purchasing several billion more tons of carbon offsets.

Continue reading ‘The Catch-22 of Waxman-Markey: Is Offsetting Inevitable?’

Today, communities from across the world and the San Francisco Bay Area converged on San Ramon, CA to protest and take direct action against the third largest corporation in the world, Chevron.  The oil giant held it’s annual shareholder meeting deep in the belly of it’s corporate headquarters.

Inside the meeting delegates from around the world, confronted Chevron CEO David O’Reilly with a long list of grievances. Green Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond California joined delegates from Nigeria, Burma, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Philippines, and Canada to speak truth to Chevron’s power.  Amazonwatch, Rainforest Action Network and several other NGO’s put together a report, written by author Antonia Juhasz, called “The True Cost of Chevron.”

O’Reilly remarked in the meeting that the report was “an insult and should have been thrown in the trash”.  I guess our movements are getting under his skin.

To download the True Cost of Chevron, go HERE. Continue reading ‘The True Cost of Chevron’

Protesters clashed with police in Copenhagen this weekend while attempting to disrupt the World Business Summit on Climate Change, a gathering of the worlds largest corporations and, not coincidentally, biggest polluters. Organized by the Danish government, the Business Summit gave corporate interests unprecedented access to the ongoing UN climate talks, including face time with UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon and so called climate “hero” Al Gore.

The group of protestors, lead by a banner reading “Our Climate is not Your Business” attempted to breach police lines in order to disrupt the meeting. The lively group of activists wanted hightlight the damaging and disruptive role that corporations play in the international climate talks. The list of corporations attending included #1 carbon emitter in the world Shell Oil, Duke Energy (#12 at last count), and BP among other climate criminals.

“The Danish government appears to be under the impression that some of the world’s most polluting companies are going to put forward tough measures to tackle climate change,” said Kenneth Haar, a researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory. “But unfortunately this doesn’t seem likely to be the case. The majority of the corporations attending the World Business Summit on Climate Change seem more intent on pursuing business as usual – with the promise that future technologies will resolve the problem at a later date. Continue reading ’71 arrested in Copenhagen resisting World Business Summit on Climate Change’