Democrats Release Climate Bill

 

here...we...go!

I told you a climate bill was coming this year! The climate bill which Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have been drafting has been released today for all of us to look at. The bill calls for cutting emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. It also creates a 25% renewable energy electricity standard by 2025. There’s a very good overview of the contents of the bill, as well as the political hurdles it will have to pass. There are a few parts of the bill and political process I would like to note, and then I’ll give my take on what I think.

“Waxman and Markey have a 36-23 advantage over Republicans in their committee, meaning the chairman can only lose votes from six members of his own party and still pass the bill, absent surprise GOP defections. Committee Democrats represent a cross section of regional interests, including coastal state members who prefer aggressive environmental limits for global warming and moderate and conservative lawmakers who prefer proposals that take into account their local industries.”

This is where it gets tricky. Assuming no Republicans come on board, this 6 vote margin means these Democrats in the more conservative districts are the real power players on this committee. They’re going to be angling for whatever concessions and weakening amendments they can get. While most if not all of them support the principle of a climate bill, I’m not sure how many are willing to support a bill with some actual teeth.

“But the measure does take a stab at how to assist industries considered most vulnerable to international competition, such as iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, ceramics, chemicals and paper. In a separate title — “Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy” — the Democratic committee leaders incorporated a proposal from Reps. Jay Inslee of Washington and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania that would set aside a certain number of allowances for industrial sectors as determined by U.S. EPA.”

I understand why this concession might need to be made in order to lighten the lobbying from these groups against the bill. However, the entire notion that regulating these industries emissions will cause them to flee overseas is a false one. I just take a look at who we think we’re protecting, and see all these manufacturers of products that solar panels and wind turbines are made of and I think…hmmmm maybe you want a strong bill that pushes these technologies so that you have more business.

Other than that, the bill has a lot of the good old things like energy efficiency, low carbon fuels, funding for plug-in hybrids and their infrastructure, a smart energy grid…and it also has some of the usual culprits like funding for clean coal and too many offsets.

My current verdict: I think that Waxman and Markey should have put forth a stronger climate bill that had no concessions and had targets that follow the science by calling for a 25% cut below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. I am a realist, I realize that this kind a climate bill is not politically feasible, but my perspective is that you should start with the strongest bill possible, and then make concessions down to the limit of what you’re willing to support. Instead of introducing a very strong climate bill, Waxman and Markey put forth an average one at best. Now they’ll have to hold the line on it, because if it gets much weaker I would consider it a bust.

I also want to take this chance to put in a plug for an event occurring in Maryland. My Congressman is Steny Hoyer, who also happens to be the House Majority Leader, making him one of the most powerful politicians in the country. He is going to be responsible for rallying the conservative Democrats on that committee and on the House floor to support a strong climate bill. On Monday May 11th from 6:30 to 8 pm, Steny Hoyer will be attending the University of Maryland campus to participate in a Clean Energy Town Hall Meeting. The room location is to be determined shortly. This climate bill that Markey and Waxman have introduced is going to be marked up and written in the month of May. It’s Waxman’s goal to have the bill out of committee by Memorial Day. This is probably the best chance for all of us in Maryland and in Hoyer’s district to influence what this bill is going to look like. Contact me if you’re interested in going at mdernoga@umd.edu

Don’t miss it for the world.

**Update 5/11/09** Here is a clearer and more in depth summary of the Waxman-Markey draft bill

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=73022105368

Obama’s Climate Envoy Signals Change

Leading up to the final climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark at the end of the year, there are going to be a series of meetings where the real deal-making takes place.   Right now, one of these meetings is taking place in Bonn, Germany.  As you might imagine, after having to deal with 8 years worth of negotiations with the Bush Administration, a lot of the delegations of other countries have become exasperated with the United States.  Even with President Obama’s encouraging rhetoric on tackling climate, there has been a hesitancy by other countries to believe it.  Yesterday, Obama’s top climate envoy Todd Stern set the stage for what was to come with a very encouraging speech to the delegations from other countries.  I’ve heard that at many times during the speech Stern received applause for the simplest of things just because other countries were so relieved that the most powerful economy was finally coming to the table to tackle the problem just in the nick of time.  This isn’t to say that there aren’t some problems with the Obama position.  The targets which Obama is talking about for the United States are weaker than what the science calls for, and they need to be bumped up throughout the negotiating process.  However, the mood in Europe and around the world has definitely shifted when it comes to climate change negotiations.  There’s a new enthusiasm in the air, and it’s carrying across the Atlantic.  There needs to be a monumental lift in this country and in these international climate negotiations by the grassroots for the world to get the kind of treaty the science is looking for.

Here we go

Excerpts of the speech below:

“As the President’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, I want to say on behalf of President Obama and his entire team that we are very glad to be back, we want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us.”

“You will not hear anyone on my team cast doubt upon or downplay the threat of global climate change. The science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction—or inadequate actions—are unacceptable.”

“In addition, President Obama is working actively with key members of Congress to implement a nationwide cap and trade program that would cut emissions by more than 15% from current levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Our Environmental Protection Agency is paving the way for more stringent standards for auto emissions and other regulatory measures. And the President is pursuing a ten year, $150 billion investment program for clean energy research, development, and deployment to speed key technologies to market and make the mitigation effort easier for all countries in the coming decades.”

“If America does what President Obama believes it can and must, and all of us collectively do what we can and must, then this negotiation can mark the time when we turned the corner and finally put the world on a safe and sustainable trajectory. We will not have solved the problem once and for all, but we will have made a powerful beginning in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner than at any time in history.”

Flexing their BICEP

I came across a host of big business companies which have formed a coalition, and put together a climate action platform stronger than anything the US has on the table, and up to par if not stronger than what many environmental groups are proposing. The name of the coalition is Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy. Notable members are Nike, eBay, Gap, and Starbucks. Their website is HERE. Their general platform is very sound, with 8 key principles.

-Set short- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets
-Stimulate green job growth
-Adopt national renewable portfolio standard
-Capture vast energy efficiency opportunities
-Boost investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage technologies
-Establish cap-and-trade system with 100% auction of carbon allowances
-Encourage transportation for clean energy economy
-Limit construction of new coal plants to those that capture and store CO2

In addition, BICEP has recently proposed their priorities for a climate change bill. These include cutting emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 by creating an economy-wide cap-and-trade with a 100% auction of the pollution permits. By comparison, President Obama’s target for 2020 is just to get greenhouse emissions back down to 1990 levels.

They have a number of resounding statements on their website. This is one of my favorites which I think should be shown to anyone who thinks climate policy is somehow environmental versus economy.

“”Members of Congress need to hear that acting on climate is not bad for our economy, but is an important piece of jump-starting our economy, which we sorely need.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         **Update 5/20/09**  Republicans vs Big Business?

Earth Hour

For those of you who don’t know, tonight from 8:30 to 9:30 people people from all around the globe are going to be turning off their lights in a symbolic gesture. There are also going to be many businesses, cities, and countries turning off the lights in the buildings and facilities they control to send a message. I even heard McDonalds is going to be dimming all of its M signs. This is supposed to represent a message that people want there to be action on the issue of climate change. While Earth Hour was of a decent size last year, this year it appears that there’s going to be a massive upswing in participation, which is a good thing considering the distractions going on around us right now like the economy.

However, I do have some reservations about Earth Hour, and whether or not this is the best way to send a message. Two issues factor into that consideration. One is that the message could easily be misconstrued that the only way to stop climate change and cut back on energy usage is to live in the dark, even though that’s far from the truth. The other is that while turning off your lights for an hour is nice, I’m of the opinion there are more productive things to do regarding the climate movement, even in only an hour. What if during that hour, hundreds of millions of people all sat down and wrote letters to their local, state, and national politicians telling them that action on climate change is a priority, and that in future elections it will be on their minds?  What if all these people went to the store and bought 1 item that would improve the energy efficiency of their home, or reduce their carbon footprint?  People could make this as simple as an efficient lightbulb, or more complex like energy efficient windows.  I think that everyone taking 1 green action during Earth Hour would be a lot more productive that turning off the lights.

That said, I’d rather there be an Earth Hour than there not be one, I just think we can do better is all. I saw a very good article today in Time Magazine which addressed my concerns. I’d definitely encourage you to read it, and below are a few quotes from it.

“This is the second year in a row that WWF has helped run a worldwide Earth Hour — the event began two years ago just in Australia) — and participation has grown tremendously, from 400 cities in 2008 to some 4,000 this year.”

“Earth Hour itself is easy to make fun of — skeptics will say that turning out the lights won’t make but a light ding in our carbon emissions, and critics will claim it proves that environmentalists really do want to send us straight to the dark ages.”

“Is Earth Hour going to become such a tipping point, or the movement’s defining image? It’s possible, but as important as pictures are, we’ll need more. When President George W. Bush was in charge, knocking away climate change action like an NHL goalie, symbolism mattered because it was all we had. Now there’s a new President who has made very green promises, and who needs to be kept to them, even in the teeth of the worst economic crisis most of us have ever known. The new battle will be fought in the nitty gritty of policy, and the protests that matter will be political ones.”

“So think of it this way; turning off your lights Saturday night is all well and good — but remember that the work really starts when you turn them back on.”

Algae to Biofuels for a Healthier Bay

There’s a very in depth and interesting article in Chesapeake Quarterly about a way of using algae to help clean the Chesapeake while at the same time being used to make biofuels.  Definitely worth the read!

Some excerpts are below:

“Walter Adey sees this pollution chokepoint at the Susquehanna River in a unique light. For him, the neck of the funnel represents a golden opportunity to set things right for the Chesapeake. This veteran ecologist from the Smithsonian Institution has a bold idea, one more than 30 years in the making. His concept could rid Susquehanna River water of excess phosphorus and nitrogen before it enters the Bay and inject oxygen into bottom waters at the same time. He’s calculated that his approach would cost a lot less than current estimates for cleaning up nutrients in the watershed”

“the goal of their project is ambitious: Harness the power of fast-growing, photosynthesizing algae to take up nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus from polluted water. In turn, let the algae pump the water full of oxygen. Then vacuum up the algae and feed it to a reactor for making a biofuel — in this case, butanol. Clean the Bay, tap into an emerging market for alternative energy, and create a revenue stream to drive the clean-up effort — all in one fell swoop.”

“They also remove or sequester carbon from the atmosphere and release oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Algae grow fast and are 5 to 10 times more efficient at photosynthesis than their more complex plant cousins. To keep photosynthetic rates high, the algae must be harvested every 6 to 12 days, which maintains their peak growth rate. These frequent harvests also mean that plenty of algae become available as raw material for producing a biofuel.”

“A Maryland-based company, Living Ecosystems, founded by Adey’s former graduate student Tim Goertemiller, has built its business constructing and selling Algal Turf Scrubber systems. Now they’re expanding the enterprise to become a “lawn service” for algae harvesting, beginning with the project on the Susquehanna River and another pilot project on the Eastern Shore. They don’t have many algae customers yet, but they’re hoping for business to grow.

“The notion of job creation is real. We’re trying to build an economy, not just an academic experiment,” says Kangas. Adey and Kangas hope that producing a biofuel will be the key driver that sets this new economy into motion.”

Melting Glaciers causing Border Change

I thought you would be interested to know that Switzerland and Italy are redrawing their borders because the Alpine glaciers that define them are melting furiously. This is another one of those points where if you’re still a skeptic your head is just buried further and further into the sand.

article

“But for the past century the surface area of the “cryosphere”, the zone of glaciers, permanent snow cover and permafrost, has been shrinking steadily, with dramatic acceleration in the past five years. This is the area over which the national frontier passes and the two countries have now agreed to have their experts sit down together and hash out where it ought to run now.”

” The new border will address changes that have been noticeable for at least 20 years, according to Luca Mercalli, a well-known Italian metereologist and climatologist. “But the melting of the glaciers has been accelerating since the very hot summer of 2003,” he said.”

Robert Kennedy Column

There was a very good column in the Washington Post today by Robert F. Kennedy about mountaintop removal.  I’ve written on this subject before as you can see here.  The coal companies aren’t going to go down on this issue without one big fight, but the trend is finally going in the right direction.

State Politics Column

I have a column out today summarizing the workings of Annapolis, what I think is wrong with it, and how to make advocacy more effective.  I recognize that I had to be general for a lot of this, since I only have a 550 word limit I can only explain so much in a way that the average college student can understand.  Additionally, I find it interesting that there is a bill in Annapolis right now which addresses the problem of campaign finance that I highlight at the end of my column.  Unfortunately, I’m of the opinion the bill is very watered down,and while it should pass, I don’t think it will have a meaningful impact.  Enjoy!

State politics: Moving the movers and shakers

Matt Dernoga

A common thread I see regarding many meaningful state bills students at the university have advocated over the years is that either they end up failing or they become so watered down that any progress made can only be measured in baby steps.

This is no different in states all over the country. The bold reforms activists push require massive grassroots efforts that fail far more often than they succeed because of political gridlock we often don’t understand. The state’s legislative body is a good case study for why this occurs.

In Annapolis, the General Assembly has a state Senate and House of Delegates. Each of the 47 districts has one senator and three delegates. This means if you’re a state senator, you’re one of 47. If you’re a delegate, you’re one of 141.

The ruling parties in the senate and house elect leaders who are called the Senate President and House Speaker. These leaders take the senators and delegates, and put them on committees that specialize in certain kinds of issues. If a bill gets the majority vote by members on its committee, it goes before either the entire house or senate for a vote.

Each committee has a chair appointed by the leader of the senate or house. The chair decides if a bill is voted on at all. That’s power. If the chair pisses off the leader, the chair could be demoted or moved to a different committee – so chairs usually only think for themselves when it’s okay with the leadership.

Some committees have more power than others. The Appropriations Committee makes the multi-billion dollar budget. Ways and Means sets the taxes. Legislators want to be on these committees and bring cash back home to please constituents. Say I’m on Appropriations and make a lot of noise about an issue against the wishes of the House Speaker. I get sent back to the Judiciary Committee to debate the death penalty to no end.

This is how the system is gamed. If you march in line with the leadership, you get on the right committees and move up to chair. If you think for yourself too often, you’ll end up on the Environment Committee arguing about a program that Appropriations has to fund anyway. The result is politicians who actually take principled stands and think for themselves are far and few between. Worse, they are neutralized by the leadership.

What we have in Annapolis is a handful of committee chairs in each chamber asking the senate and house leadership which bills to allow a vote on. As a result, meaningful legislation usually only moves when our Senate President and House Speaker decide they want it to. Special interest groups know this. All they have to do is target their money and lobbying power into a handful of decision makers. But I’m afraid students don’t understand. And if they do, they lack the cash to sway the real decision makers.

There’s no easy fix. Changing either the campaign finance system or the power structure of the General Assembly is a heavy lift when the people running it don’t want that change. Ultimately, if enough people got behind these kinds of reforms, they would pass. Politicians will only side with political expediency so long as it doesn’t threaten them in the polls. Perhaps voters should do a bit of targeting of our own.

Matt Dernoga is a junior government and politics major. He can be reached at mdernoga@umd.edu

MD Global Warming Bill Passes Key House Committee

A few hours ago, Maryland’s Economic Matters Committee passed the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Act of 2009.  This was the last major hurdle for the bill.  It’s already passed out of the State Senate, and the Environmental Committee and House floor are considered very favorable to this legislation.  The Governor supports the bill, so at this point I’m 99% certain the bill will pass.  This bill sets a target for Maryland to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 25% below 2006 levels by 2020.  The Maryland Climate Commissions came out with a portfolio of 42 policies and recommendations last year which the state can use to reduce 25-50% of its 2006 greenhouse emissions by 2020.  These policies address land use, transportation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, agriculture, and environmental educations.  None of them harm manufacturing.  They are projected to generate billions for our state’s economy.  Here is the press release from a state environmental organization below.

Maryland Poised to Pass Bold Global Warming Bill

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Would Make Maryland a National Leader in Curbing Global Warming Pollution and Fostering a Clean Energy Economy

Annapolis—A key committee in the Maryland House of Delegates today passed HB 315, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.  This committee killed the bill last year, but this year approved the measure.  The Senate passed the bill on March 2, 2009 with a bipartisan majority of 36 votes to 9.

The bill now heads to the House floor, which is normally considered favorable to environmental legislation. Gov. Martin O’Malley is a lead sponsor, so will certainly sign the bill.

The bill requires the state to reduce its global warming pollution 25% below 2006 levels by the year 2020.  To achieve those reductions, the bill directs the Maryland Department of the Environment to finalize regulations by 2012.

The primary legislative sponsors are Sen. Paul Pinsky (Prince George’s) and Del. Kumar Barve (Montgomery).

“The clean energy future is here today,” said Environment Maryland State Director Brad Heavner.  “As we take a leadership position on addressing global warming, we will also set the path for good jobs, healthy air, less dependence on foreign fuel, and smart growth.”

Laws passed in recent years, such as the Healthy Air Act, the Clean Cars Act, and the EmPower Maryland energy efficiency program, will achieve more than half of the reductions required by this bill.  The remainder would be realized through measures such as increased transportation choices, recycling, and incentives for green buildings.  The Maryland Commission on Climate Change has made 42 policy recommendations to reduce the state’s global warming pollution.

“This bill puts us at the forefront of the national and international effort to address the reality of global warming,” said Tommy Landers, Policy Advocate.  “At the same time, it will put us ahead of the curve in the transition to a revitalized economy fueled by clean, homegrown energy.”

Passage of a pollution reduction mandate in Maryland would boost efforts in Washington to pass federal global warming legislation.  The state would join six other states with legislative commitments to reduce pollution – New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Washington and Hawaii.  The 25 percent reduction in Maryland is the largest commitment of any of those states.

The bill has been hotly debated in Maryland for the past two years.  In the 2007 legislative session, the bill was introduced but did not come to a vote.  Last year, an amended version passed the Senate, but the bill was voted down in the House Economic Matters Committee.

The bill is strongly supported by a coalition called the Alliance for Global Warming Solutions. The coalition includes environmental, faith, business and health organizations.

**Update** It’s worth nothing the bill had no serious impediments the rest of the way, and was signed into law by the Governor.

Nuclear Power Article Contention

Today there was a column in the Washington Post by Todd Tucker about some common misconceptions about nuclear power from his perspective. I wanted to be careful to remind him about some problems with nuclear power which I thought he had overlooked in his column. He quickly responded and acknowledged my concerns, and I think he gave a very fair response. I think this is a good example of how two reasonable people can disagree about something. I’d encourage you to read his article, and I’ve posted both my original e-mail and his response below.

My e-mail:

Hi Todd, I read your Op-Ed. I’m an environmentalist, but my lack of enthusiasm for nuclear power isn’t because of environmental reasons. If it could be shown to me that nuclear power was the most cost effective and fastest way to replace coal plants, I would seriously consider supporting it. However, it’s neither of the two. Renewables such as wind, solar, geothermal, as well as energy efficiency can be deployed faster and cheaper for the same amount of MW a nuclear power plant would provide. The reason there haven’t been new nuclear power plants isn’t because of environmentalists(we haven’t been a strong enough force until recent years), it’s because nuclear power is nearly incapable of capturing investors or attracting private investment despite the fact that we’ve had massive government subsidies for it. People like to reference European countries such as Finland and France that get a lot of their power from nuclear, but these references are usually in poor context. Countries like these are the size of small US states and use far less energy per capita. The only reason they are able to build power plants is because they are borderline socialist since the free market would never allow it.

I’d encourage you to check out a column I wrote about nuclear power last year(environmental argument never factored into the picture)

http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/10/21/Opinion/Nuclear.Power.Turn.To.Better.Alternatives-3496543.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab

Additionally, here are two excellent blog posts by former employee of the Dept. of Energy Joe Romm about some recent ills of mordern nuclear power in other countries

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/3/161845/6691

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/30/124538/973

His Response:

Thank you so much for the calm, reasoned note. I’ve been reading a lot of rants since the article came out, so it was nice to hear from a logical person. In most of those rants, I am accused of being a shill for the nuclear power industry, a strange position to take about a guy whose book describes a fatal reactor accident.

My charter with this piece wasn’t to argue for or against, but to elaborate on “5 myths.” If I had a thesis, i guess it is that i think nuclear power should be considered as a matter of trade-offs, not an absolute evil –or an absolute good.

But, had i listed the soundest argument AGAINST nuclear power, it would have been yours. I think you are absoultely correct in that nuclear power has not proven its economic viability. Although, with some plants operating 40+ years now, they are getting close. The other counter argument is that as more plants are built, they will become more economical. But – - your point is a very good one, and your arguments are very sound.

Thanks again for taking the time to give me such reasoned feedback -

Todd Tucker

Author of ATOMIC AMERICA: HOW A DEADLY EXPLOSION AND A FEARED ADMIRAL CHANGED THE COURSE OF NUCLEAR HISTORY