Cross-Posted from: here
I knew as soon as I read the Op-Ed in the NY Times Sunday co-authored by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and John Kerry.
As Energy Smart Now concludes “Let us hope that that “legitimate bipartisan effort” emerges and is reality-based. If it does, again, this might well go down as the most important OPED to appear in an American newspaper in 2009 … and perhaps even longer.”
I am now convinced that the US will pass climate legislation in the Senate. The 60 votes will be there. How do I know? Well, aside from having my useful analysis a the Senate from the summer to move names around, I am certain that if Lindsey Graham supports the bill, John McCain will come along without too much kicking and screaming. They see energy issues very similarly. I already considered the 2 Maine Republican Senators to be good enough on this issue to support a Senate bill. This means the Democrats can survive losing 4 of their own flank in a Senate vote, since at least 4 Republicans are going to vote with the Democrats. Knowing the ability of the Senate leadership to count votes and the behind the scenes work of the Obama administration, there’s just too much room to work with now for this bill to not reach 60 votes for cloture.
And I actually think we could get to 60 without weakening the bill’s emissions target. The indications from Kerry and Graham were that the current framework of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 didn’t move too fast.
“First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change.”
Now there are going to things in here that a lot of activists, myself included won’t like. However upon first glance these current concessions are ones I can live with. More provisions for streamlining nuclear? Go ahead, have a field day, I’ve already written about why no nuclear plants are getting built. It’s not the permit process that’s the issue. The plants cost over $10 billion dollars these days when they’re projected to cost half. You can’t get around that.
Money for clean coal? Well thats nothing new from the House bill. Once again, sure lets throw some money away on clean coal. Will clean coal technology exist anytime soon? Nope. Is it a waste of money? Yep. Do I think it’s okay for us to bribe some Senators with money for technology that will not come to fruition in order to get them to agree to regulate the emissions of the coal industry? Yeah, I do.
Offshore oil drilling? Oh no! Except we already know that even if we drilled for more oil offshore, we wouldn’t get any for 10-15 years. Even when we did, it would be a very minimal amount each day. Am I willing to trade away the burning of a little bit of oil a decade from now so that we can reduce oil consumption by millions of barrels of oil a day sooner and invest in a new transportation system with plug-in and electric vehicles? Yeah, I am.
So, while I might not like some of the above, we aren’t giving much up since we know all these things don’t work anyways. It’s a landmark deal, and it’s in our favor.
Now what I’m not willing to trade on is the important things in the bill. The emissions target. The renewable electricity standard(which the energy and natural resources committee already screwed up). The investment in clean energy technologies. The energy efficiency standards and new building codes. The money being used to prevent international deforestation.
Activists need to fight for the important things to keep the bill from being weaker than it already is in those areas. We will get climate legislation. The difference in the quality of that legislation will be how many swing Senators can be pushed into supporting the framework Graham and Kerry lay out without demanding real concessions like I listed above.
That’s where we come in.
**Update** For the record, Climate Progress, Bill Sher, and Grist think this is huge too(and that the concessions are minimal).
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
“its in our favor”
are you kidding me? how can you claim that a bill that will expand fossil fuel infrastructure will be good for the climate? Lets put aside the fact that the emission caps are way to weak (they come nowhere close for us to avoid tipping points), you simply cannot meet any emission reduction targets if you are expanding infrastructure for the #1 for the primary cause of climate change, fossil fuels.
yes there are major financial hurdles currently to nukes. but Kerry and Graham’s editorial clearly indicated that they would seek to change that. The hurdle will be about an inch high if the federal government throws billions of dollars to the industry as Kerry and Graham have said they would like to do.
And the prospects of funding for CCS, will have very real and deadly impacts on coalfield communities and those living in the shadows of coal fields. Even if it never comes to fruition, (which clearly CCS has a much higher possibilty of coming to fruition when the government throws money at it) the pursuit of CCS will only prolong the coal industries existence, meaning more mountains destroyed, more homes flooded, more people poisoned by emissions (120,000 premature deaths a year according to the EPA).
You brushing off these horribly dangerous projects because they currently don’t seem feasible (which in many cases they are feasible) or they are already included in the house bill is utterly foolhardy and reckless.
It is really sad to see folks in the climate movement lowering their standards so low that they are only asking congress not to weaken the bill even further.
If I may be so bold to point out, it would take +20 years for whichever technologies you want to put on the grid on a mass scale. Intermittent renewables need energy storage to replace current baseload units and state regulators will put up resistance to ANY technologies they think too expensive (be it solar or nuclear).
You’re saying putting a price on carbon and mandating emissions reductions and new energy efficiency standards will prolong the coal industries existence. Good luck with that.
The government already throws billions of dollars at the nuke industry. I’ll take my chances.
Funding for new technologies like CCS(no matter how stupid they are) isn’t what prolongs coal use and mountaintop removal. Not putting a price on this destruction is what keeps them profitable. Your reckless position of all or nothing instead of moving the ball forward is what will prolong coal use and mountaintop removal.
Your inability to give up next to nothing for something or to count to 60 would make you more dangerous to climate legislation than the coal companies if enough people actually took you seriously.
Now go back to dressing up like a pirate and crashing climate summits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJ3HCUvzKY&feature=player_embedded
As for me not asking (or lobbying) for stronger emissions targets….wrong!
http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/umd-for-clean-energy-letter-ben-cardin/
“The short term emissions target of a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 is the weakest part of the bill. The science tells us that 25-40% below 1990 levels is needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Additionally, a 17% target makes agreeing on a global treaty in Copenhagen quite difficult, and getting a strong treaty all but impossible. The 2020 target must move in the direction of the science to make America a leader so that we have the leverage we need to pressure other countries to do more.”
http://www.gazette.net/stories/08282009/polilet163516_32523.shtml
I guess where we differ is that i don’t see massive give aways to the very industries responsible for climate change as “next to nothing.”
Do you want to know what prolongs fossil fuel use? How about the 43 new coal plants that will be grandfathered in by ACESA, one of which is in my backyard (Duke Energy’s Cliffside) that will be poisoning the air I breathe.
How about giving away so many free emissions credits and allowing for so many offsets that emissions will likely continue to rise?
How about leaving agriculture out of the equation (most fertilizers are fossil fuel based)?
Look, I don’t doubt your sincerity in fighting for a better world, we are all in this together. What I am saying is that we cannot get to that better world if we are so willing to compromise. Let the politicians do the compromising, not us.
You know why the NRA is possibly one of the most effective lobbying groups in the country? They don’t compromise. They stick to their guns (pun intended)! Now look at the mainstream eco groups, and your own statements. How can you expect to get a better bill passed (which you agree is necessary) when you are so eager to make extremely damaging concessions?
Again, I’m not trying to be enemies here, I am merely advocating for us as a climate movement to push for solutions that really address climate change, not half measures for congress to compromise on. Our job is to fight for what we believe in, and continue fighting until we get it. Many will compromise along the way, but we don’t need to be the ones selling away our future for a few crumbs.
Social movements have the power to shift the terms of debate, to make what one day seems politically impossible, completely plausible the next day, or vice versa. Look at the ability of the right wing and tea baggers to block health care reform. They are very hardline, even to the point of lunacy, but they are effective because they aren’t so eager to compromise. We can only attain that kind of power and sway if we as a movement stay strong and stick to our ideals, and not settle for half-measures.
By not compromising we can shift the terms of debate, but we need to be willing to stick together to do it.
Hello Folks,
Just wanted to encourage a slightly more civil discourse. It’s fine to disagree, but to resort to personal attacks takes the conversation from what someone thinks, to a judgment of what they are. Please, let’s make this about the fight to save the climate, and focus on reasoned arguments and mutual respect. None of us are going to solve this problem alone.
Thanks
John
Show me the place/page in the bill, either House or Senate, where 43 new coal plants are grandfathered in. I have never seen it in the bill or any summary of the bill, only in rumors. My reading is that all plants must have allowances to emit CO2, no exceptions.
Even the conservative EIA finds a massive retirement of coal plants
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/pdf/sroiaf(2009)05.pdf
The only point about the legislation you make which I agree on is the agriculture one, the rest are in my opinion and analysis are hype and truthiness. A big difference is you think the structure of the bill is wrong and will not work. I think the structure is alright (hence the bill will work), and the targets/provisions are too weak(the bill will not work fast enough). I think this is something, you think it’s worse than nothing. We’re not going to resolve that difference anytime soon.
The only thing we’re going to agree on here is wanting a stronger bill and wanting to stop catastrophic climate change. Tactics and political/activist strategy on achieving this have been debated plenty over the past few months on and offline with no resolution.
I did not eagerly make any damaging concessions, I simply explained why the concessions being made were not damaging, and kept the bill average. Any glance at everything I’ve written online, and everything I’ve participated in offline would show I’ve consistently called for stronger provisions throughout the legislation. I completely support all of the direct actions against coal being done, having partaken in 3 myself in the last year. I’ve blasted the EPA consistently over not regulating mountaintop removal, and I call into their office every day and tell them to stop it. If you’re so eager to “stick together” then quit attacking environmental groups and environmentalists who mean well for having different tactics on how to reduce emissions, and focus on the bad guys.
“The 43 plants are either already under construction, near construction or permitted. They fall under a designation called “progressing projects” in a report (attached below) published by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and under provisions in the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill now awaiting Senate action, they would all be grandfathered in without direct restriction on their CO2 emissions.”
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090716/43-new-coal-plants-would-escape-climate-bill-co2-standards
“If you’re so eager to “stick together” then quit attacking environmental groups and environmentalists who mean well for having different tactics on how to reduce emissions, and focus on the bad guys.”
I am not attacking people or groups for the tactics they use, I don’t think direct action alone is going to solve the problem either. I am simply calling out groups that seem to be more interested in appeasing major polluters than fighting for real change.
On the contrary, I would say that it is the Big Greens who are to blame for dividing our movement. They are, after all, the ones that abandoned our core values in favor of playing Washington politics and cozying up to Wall St. (example Sierra Clubs endorsement of “green” Clorox).
Another question? The EPA has the full authority to regulate ghg emissions NOW. No innefective carbon markets, no waiting on Congress, no tricky offsets, just good old fashioned regulation. Why are we waiting on Congress to pass a highly compromised bill instead of getting the EPA to do their job?
later in your article
“The only tool the ACES bill creates to combat those new emissions is the gradually descending cap on carbon it imposes”. Nevermind energy efficiency or renewable energy…but I digress..
My statement prior: “My reading is that all plants must have allowances to emit CO2, no exceptions.”
The article refers to performance standards, not the carbon cap. All 43 of those plants will be regulated under a carbon cap. Like I said, truthiness (especially in the title of that article).
The EPA that can’t even step up to stop mountaintop removal is going to impose regulation on ghg emissions thats stronger than 20% by 2020 with no price on carbon and no investment in clean energy or energy efficiency? Nevermind the legal red tape. I’ll bet our friends at Copenhagen would be impressed by that one.
This needs to be given a “F” for fail.
A 4% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020? Are you kidding me? If this is the best that the biggest polluting country on the planet can some up with then its “good game world”. Seriously, this is game over.
People who state that we shouldn’t make “great the enemy of the good” need to understand that “rational discussion critiquing “less bad or basically flawed” approaches” is a valid form of comment that shouldn’t be implicitly discouraged.
So start acting rational. Push for a stronger emissions target. Don’t attack the people trying to get a cap and price on carbon pollution. If you’re going to critique the approach, then expect your gun to the head approach of “get nothing” to get critiqued back.