It’s Getting Hot In Here

Cross-posted from: here

In my first post on the coming climate legislation battle in the Senate, I focused on a myriad of suggestions on how both the politicians pushing legislation as well as environmental activists and organizations could work to get a stronger bill. Despite the monumental challenge of getting to 60 votes in the Senate, as I said in the first post which I won’t repeat in depth here, there are advantages in terms of how to increase the pressure on Senators that we didn’t have in the House. However that isn’t the focus of this post. This post basically shows that absent a much stronger and smarter mobilization in the Senate, there will need to be wheeling and dealing done by President Obama, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, along with top Democrats.

As a disclaimer I will say that the “pick your poison” scenario I lay out at the end is not one that I would like to see. It is simply a look at what it’s going to take to get 60. Another disclaimer is this is a long post, so bring a snack. Continue reading ‘Navigating a Minefield Part 2′

According to The Center for Public Integrity, more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal climate policy in 2008.  That means every day, 2,340 briefcase-holding and business card-carrying bodies walk through the halls of Congress with the sole aim of either strengthening or weakening the policies that will help spark a clean energy revolution and combat the climate crisis. From Chevron to Chevrolet, from Alcoa to Xerox, everybody is funding somebody to argue their case. This Washington insider game is what’s determining the climate policies that make it out of Congress.

When you think of it though, why should these inside-the-beltway lobbyists have all the clout? Our future as individual human beings is at stake along with the future of major corporations and utility districts! How can the everyday citizen get on the same playing field as these lobbyists? These questions encouraged us, two college students who are part of the youth climate movement, to set out writing a guide to climate policy that would help every American understand the policy details and political context around the climate debate in Congress. The result is “The Citizen’s Guide to Climate Policy,” a short booklet that will prepare you to become a lobbyist for change. The only way we’re going to get the strong climate policy we need is if a group of impassioned citizens engage their elected officials , and are so well versed on the implications of specific policies that we can battle on the same ground as the industry lobbyists who are walking the halls of Congress. Continue reading ‘Introducing “The Citizen’s Guide to Climate Policy”’

By Devon Swezey, Breakthrough Fellow
Cross-posted from Breakthrough Institute

President Obama’s national energy education program designed to create a generation of clean energy innovators has been cut from $115 to $7 million by a House subcommittee. The cuts could mean that fewer than 100 scholarships, not 1,500 scholarships, will be available annually.

Energy analysts say that one of the key barriers to developing clean energy technologies that can compete with fossil fuels is the lack of scholarships both for young scientists to do basic research and for engineers seeking to apply discoveries in the real world.

The Administration’s energy education program, called RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge), would have resulted in “the development of leading edge undergraduate and graduate programs and between 5,000 and 8,500 highly educated scientists, engineers, and other professionals to enter the clean energy field by 2015; and approximately 10,000 to 17,000 professionals by 2020,” according to the Department of Energy (DOE).  The initiative, which would be jointly supported by DOE and the National Science Foundation, was modeled after the Breakthrough Institute’s National Energy Education Act proposal and would have been the largest federal initiative to focus exclusively on clean energy education.

Continue reading ‘House Committee Cuts Funding for Obama’s Energy Education Initiative’

By Teryn Norris
Originally published by AlterNet
July 8, 2009

The recent passage of the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) through the U.S. House of Representatives drew different reactions from climate and environmental advocates. But one key perspective shared by most advocates is that, despite its weaknesses, the bill is a good first step. ACES builds a solid foundation for future progress on U.S. climate mitigation, the argument goes, and climate advocates will be well-positioned to strengthen the legislation in years ahead.

But what are the prospects for strengthening ACES in future years? This question is subject to many uncertainties, depending on the vagaries of the political climate. But a closer examination reveals that ACES could create a “super-lobby” of interest groups that will significantly diminish the possibility of achieving future reforms.

The newest climate lobby — and potentially one of the most powerful in years to come — is the financial industry. If ACES is signed into law, the global carbon market could become the largest commodity market in the world. According to Bart Chilton, Commissioner of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), “The potential size and scope of a structured carbon emissions market in the US is unequivocally vast. It is certainly possible that the emissions markets could overtake all other commodity markets.”

A growing number of analysts are expressing concerns about the emergence of a new financial climate lobby and the potential for gaming in a new U.S. carbon market. A recent report by Friends of Earth (FOE), “Subprime Carbon,” argued that cap and trade proposals like ACES could create a system with similar financial and political interests to the housing market bubble. Just as financial practices during the housing bubble caused deteriorating standards in mortgages, cap and trade could create “subprime” carbon offsets — offsets that do not represent actual emission reductions and carbon derivatives based on future carbon reductions with high risk of not being fulfilled.

Continue reading ‘New Climate Bill Could Create “Super Lobby” Against U.S. Emissions Reductions’

On July 1st, New York Times published an op-ed by 2002 Pulitzer Prize winner and noted author Thomas Friedman. The article titled “Just Do It”, calls out the flaws of the ACES bill. Friedman, author of “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the World”, agrees with many scientists, economists and environmental journalist, Brentin Mockr, that the ACES bill is weak and cannot afford to get any weaker. Friedman goes off in this op-ed calling out Republicans, President Obama and the American public for making this bill weak. Here’s a piece of what he had to say:

“Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face.”

We hear you Friedman and we here at www.checktheweather.net
have been hitting the concrete talking to real people about this “ACES” Climate Bill. Last night we went out to Horace and Dickie’s Chicken and Fish Carry Out in Northeast, Washington, DC and asked Dennis “Chico” Jackson what he felt about Climate Change, Michael Jackson and most importantly what he knew about the Waxman Markey climate bill.

Visit Checktheweather.net to watch the video, download our mixtape for climate justice and get in the KNOW on real people talking real about the Green Movement. www.checktheweather.net

Join ACE this July 4 as we break up with oil! Declare your Independence from Fossil Fuels and Sign the Declaration:

www.climateeducation.org/petition

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed the House of Representatives Friday afternoon, with only one vote to spare. We owe Chairmen Waxman and Markey their fair due for getting this done – molding a bill that reduces US emissions 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 and that 217 other members of the house will actually vote for  is impressive. Its passage is groundbreaking. But the bill itself isn’t.

As soon as we’re done congratulating Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey and the other 217 representatives on the “yes” side, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to light a fire under them, the rest of the House, the Senate and President Obama.

ACES isn’t good enough. It isn’t smart enough. And gosh darn it, people who fully understand the science and economics of climate and energy don’t like it. But that’s the sorry state of the US Congress today – even with a handsome Democratic majority, legislators are still more concerned with dirty industry’s short-term profits than they are with the long-term feasibility of our modern economy. This bill compromises our economy and our environment for political necessity. To the credit of Chairmen Waxman and Markey, the slim margin of passage tells me they compromised almost exactly as much as was needed to get this done, and not a bit more. Continue reading ‘ACES in the House: a Job, Well, Done.’

Co-written by Morgan Goodwin and Rob Price, members of the Avaaz Action Factory

A buzz accompanied the lunchtime rush at Longworth Cafeteria on Capitol Hill today as staffers and Reps looked at their watches and talked amongst themselves ready to witness an activist flash mob making a statement about the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Flash mobs are Internet organized convergences of people for a pre-organized purpose.

Over 30 young activists converged on the cafeteria, cleverly wearing the suit-and-tie disguise that is customary there, and doing nothing out of the ordinary until at precisely 12:15 pm they froze like statues. Where groups of ‘mobbers’ stood close together, frozen, reaching for ketchup, adjusting glasses, adjusting a hair clip, paused mid-stride etc, the effect was striking. At the end of two minutes of stillness one member of the ‘mob’ yelled out tick, tick, tick, a catch cry of Tck Tck Tck a global campaign for urgent climate action run by the Global Humanitarian Forum and supported by a broad coalition of climate groups.
Continue reading ‘Flash Mob for Climate Justice’

Cross-Posted from: HERE

Here in the United States, environmental groups are all over the place regarding their stance on the Waxman-Markey bill in Congress. Some say thumbs up, others say it’s better to pass it than pass nothing, and others either cannot support the bill, or want a no vote from liberal Democrats. I explain my position and rationale here. I saw an article in the NY Times today which made me think a lot about the dilemma faced here. On one hand, the 17% target in the Waxman-Markey bill will most likely not lead to a desirable treaty in Copenhagen. On the other hand, what if we show up to Copenhagen with absolutely nothing? One thing I think people overlook is the fact that Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are two of the most progressive lawmakers in the US Congress. They know energy, and they aren’t a bunch of pansies when it comes to global warming. Their bill is as strong as the political system in the US will tolerate.

Australia faces a similar situation. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ran on a platform that included taking action on climate change, and he’s put forth a cap and trade plan, but it’s only 5% reduction below 2000 levels by 2020.   Australia is willing to go as far as 25% if other nations step up in Copenhagen. It’s passed out of Australia’s House, but is facing huge problems in the Senate. The labor party can’t pass the law on its own, and the conservatives are vowing to fight it and kill it. However, in Australia they have a 3 party system, and the 3rd party is the Greens party, which is strongly pro-environment. If the Greens party teams up with Labour, they can pass the bill. However, the Greens are saying that 5% is too weak, and they cannot support it. Right now, their position is 25% or bust. If this position holds, we’re going to see a very comparable result as we would see in the United States if the liberal members of the Democratic party listened to their base and voted no because the bill wasn’t strong enough. Would the result be a stronger bill, or an empty sheet of paper in Copenhagen? Of course, Australia has an advantage in that if their bill fails twice, they can call elections and have the people kick out the troublemakers. Let’s see what happens to the bill. In my opinion, it will give a good indication of what would happen here. I highly recommend reading the NY Times article.

Congressman DeFazio & Candidate Obama

Cross-posted from Focus the Nation

After listening to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) speak today on all the reasons the Waxman-Markey cap and trade plan (ACES) is deeply flawed and that advocates for greenhouse gas reductions should be working to kill it, not pass it, I find myself almost convinced.

I’m only almost convinced because I fear the two alternatives to cap and trade – a carbon tax or Clean Water Act-style regulation – may be political nonstarters.

Congressman DeFazio (and many others) claims that carbon trading will be subject to all the same financial corruption responsible for our current economic crisis and that offsets provisions remove any incentive for real behavior change. He has co-sponsored Jim McDermott’s bill that would impose a Clean Water Act-style regulator system on global warming pollution, and hinted that a carbon tax would be better than cap and trade.

At the end of the Congressman’s speech today, I asked him this: “Waxman-Markey, even in its present severely weakened form, is going to have a tough time passing the full house. What are the chances of Congressman McDermott’s bill, Congressman Larson’s carbon tax, or even Congressman Inglis’ revenue-neutral carbon tax bill of passing the house, and how important is it to the success of an international climate treaty that the US pass something soon?” Continue reading ‘Would Obama Do It?’