Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Climate Progress

Climate Progress


"The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 06:41 AM PDT

"They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent…  Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger.  The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close.  In its place we are entering a period of consequences….  We cannot avoid this period, we are in it now…"

Winston Churchill, November 12, 1936

Paul Gilding, former executive director of Greenpeace International, has another piece I'm reposting, "The Parallel Universes of Climate Change. Where do you live?" You may remember Gilding from Tom Friedman's Ponzi scheme column (see here).

Some days my head hurts, as I shift between what feels like two parallel universes in the climate change debate. First I have these conversations with world-class scientists who calmly lay out the scientific view of the various risks posed by climate change and their relative scale and likelihoods. They tell me the science says it is almost certain the impacts will be serious and destabilising for our society and our economy. The science also describes a lower level of risk – which they find hard to quantify but generally say between 10% and 50% – that the impacts of climate change will be catastrophic, perhaps even civilisation threatening. This could include widespread famine, war and economic collapse. Not certain, but a reasonable possibility.

It is very clear when you listen to these scientists and read their peer-reviewed reports that, on any calm and rational analysis, we should be preparing for a carbon reduction war. Yes, a war – with all that implies about focus, effort and sacrifice. The threat posed is, after all, a "clear and present danger" and the response should be strong, global and immediate. This should be a 'whatever it takes' moment.

Then I shift into the parallel universe.

I spend time in corporate boardrooms and listen to the analysis of business executives who explain how we mustn't damage the economy by "over-reacting". They explain their concern about protecting jobs and economic growth, how we must not jeopardise "our" (insert India, China, South Africa, USA, Australia etc) national competitiveness by acting "early" because, after all, without a global solution what difference will our actions make anyway? When I engage with policy makers, even those supportive of climate action, I get only a marginally stronger response.

Of course, each of these arguments has its narrow appeal. There's always a bit of truth and rationality, and that's why people use them. But the collective consequence of these arguments is the real story here – the story that historians will tell. We have had the risk thoroughly analysed and explained to us and we are choosing, with endlessly shifting reasons for prevarication and delay, not to act commensurate to the level of risk.

I wonder what it was like in the lead up to WWII, the last time we had a serious and clear global threat. When Hitler invaded Poland, did Winston Churchill order an economic modelling exercise to understand the implications of spending over a quarter of GDP on the war effort? When Pearl Harbour was bombed, did US industry argue we shouldn't over-react, that America shouldn't respond until there was a global agreement to act so as to avoid a disproportionate share of the cost?

No, fortunately for us, that wasn't their response. In fact, just four days after Pearl Harbour was bombed, the auto industry was ordered to cease all civilian production in order to focus on the war effort. Such actions soon spread across the economy. I imagine US political leaders thoughts were something like this: "Well damn the objectors, this is a threat to our freedom and to our way of life. In fact, this is such a profound threat we will throw everything we have at it and make it work, even though we don't know whether we will succeed nor the costs of trying."

They would have said: "We will have to do this because if we don't, our children will curse our lack of courage and our selfishness. If we act we may fail. But if we don't act, we won't be able to live with ourselves for not trying."

In our present day to day lives, when the weather is a bit warmer than normal but often rather pleasant, and our economy is showing signs of improving, it is hard for most of us to think like this. The business leaders I talk to about this topic are not bad people.. Nor are the policy makers grappling with the complexities of transforming an economy and the uncertainty of the outcomes. They are normal people with children and friends – they go to church, they volunteer in their communities and they care about the world. (OK, there are a few exceptions, but not many!)

But they still fall for the easy way out, the path of denial and avoidance. Not because they're bad people, but because they're not thinking clearly and courageously.

My message on this topic is clear and direct. We are at a crucial moment in human history. 2009 is to climate change what 1939 was to WWII. Poland has been invaded – the Arctic is melting, the bushfires are burning, the droughts are strengthening and the floods are sweeping away communities. There is only one question you have to ask yourself: "what will I tell my children?"

So now, imagine yourself in 2030. The world is teetering on the edge of geopolitical and economic chaos (this is not a certainty, but it is certainly a reasonable risk). You are talking to your children (add 20 years to their current age) and explaining what it was like in 2009 – what the scientific consensus was and how you personally responded, then and there, when the reality became clear. What did you do in 2009 and why?

In 2030, the parallel universes will have closed and there will only be one left. It will be called reality and you and your children will be living in it. Imagine the conversation. Do it now, then decide what to do.

Reid aide walks back Senate Majority Leader's comment on climate bill timing

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 06:12 AM PDT

Just hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) floated the notion that cap-and-trade bill MAY wait till 2010, a top aide unfloated it, as E&E News (subs. req'd) reports today:

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, insisted last night that "no decisions have been made" on floor timing for a comprehensive climate and energy bill. "We still intend to deal with health care, [Wall Street regulatory] reform and cap and trade this year," Manley added in an e-mail.

Again, it's probably 50-50 at this point with the bill is voted on this year.

The story also has news on the progress Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) are making putting together their draft bill:

Boxer and Kerry had originally planned to release a draft cap-and-trade bill last week, but they punted on that schedule to continue negotiations with other senators over unfinished pieces to their proposal.

Yesterday, Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he and Boxer still plan to get the draft legislation out by Sept. 30. "We have a mental deadline," Kerry said. "We are aiming for this month."

The climate bill authors are "making great progress" as they meet with other senators to map out key features of the bill, Kerry added. "We are going to be working very, very hard, almost every night over the next two weeks," he said.

Kerry said he plans to hold a markup in the Foreign Relations Committee in October. Boxer said she too remains on schedule for passing the legislation out of her Environment and Public Works Committee next month. "The feeling is that it's moving in our direction," she said.

And conservatives remain, well, conservatives:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said he doubts a climate bill can lead to any positive results. "What do we get in terms of actual economic benefit from controlling greenhouse gas emissions?" he asked.

Hmm, other than creating 1.7 million clean energy jobs and not ruining the health and well-being of the next 50 generations — what benefit is there, really?  (see "Waxman-Markey clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill creates $1.5 trillion in benefits")

Are Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue's Ties to Union Pacific Railroading the Companies that Support Climate Policy?

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 04:54 AM PDT

The President of the US Chamber of Commerce, who is resisting calls from his own board members to stop fighting against federal climate policy, is being richly compensated by Union Pacific, a company which — along with some of its key businesses partners — is vigorously fighting against federal climate policy.

When we last left the Chamber it had admitted that calling for the 'Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century' on climate science was dumb, but it was still aping the deniers.  But even before that, many wondered, Why is the Chamber of Commerce a right-wing echo chamber when much of its Board supports a strong clean energy and climate bill? Pete Altman, NRDC's Climate Campaign Director, has an explanation in this piece first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on such a different page from its major members when it comes to climate change legislation?

Last spring we raised the question of who the US Chamber of Commerce is really representing when it comes to the issue of climate change. It seemed curious that although 19 of the companies' on the Chambers' board were on record supporting climate legislation while only four (including three coal companies) were against it, the US Chamber staff continued to take a hard-line position on the issue. And as I've previously discussed, the US Chamber announced in June 2009 that it would spend $100 million fighting proposals it opposes, including on climate policy.

Now, a new question has arisen, prompted by this 2006 item about the 25th anniversary of a railroad line built by Union Pacific railroad to carry coal from southern Wyoming to the rest of the U.S.

What is the connection between Union Pacific Railroad (ticker symbol UNP), dirty coal and the US Chamber? The dots connecting them draw what has the appearance of a conflict of interest between Tom Donohue's role as President of the US Chamber of Commerce and his role as an 11-year member of the Union Pacific Railroad's Board of Directors.

Starting with Mr. Donohue: US Chamber President Tom Donohue has been on the board of directors at Union Pacific since 1998. As a Union Pacific board member, Donohue has been well cared for.

  • He has been paid annual retainers by Union Pacific amounting to at least $1,134,333 since 1998.
  • As of 2008, Donohue has been granted over 43,000 shares of Union Pacific stock, and is entitled to the value of nearly 20,000 more shares when he leaves the board – a package whose combined value would be over $3.8 million if he were to sell it today.
  • So being on the Union Pacific board can be seen as worth about $5 million to Tom Donohue, so far. (You can piece all this compensation together from the company's proxy statements.)

In addition, Union Pacific has been good to the US Chamber:

  • Union Pacific has given $700,000 to the US Chamber since 2004, including $500,000 to the Chamber's "Leadership Fund" (a common name for PACs run by Chambers of Commerce), $100,000 to a voter education project in 2006 and $100,000 to an award ceremony in 2007. (These contributions to the Chamber are reported in the company's 2009, 2008 and 2007 proxy statements.)

Ok, but it is common for people in Donohue's position to be on various boards and such. So what? Well, I don't know what the US Chamber's policy on conflict of interest says, but if it doesn't cover this situation, it needs fixing.

Union Pacific has a vested interest in making sure it can continue to haul lots of coal.

  • Union Pacific is big in the business of carrying coal from mines to power plants, including from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, the source of about 38% of all the coal produced in the U.S.
  • Coal shipments are estimated to make up about 20% of freight revenues enjoyed by the big rail carriers, including Union Pacific.
  • In Union Pacific's own words,

    "We May Be Affected by Climate Change and Market or Regulatory Responses to Climate Change…Restrictions, caps, taxes, or other controls on emissions of greenhouse gasses, including diesel exhaust, could significantly increase our operating costs…[and] could also affect our customers…[which could] reduce the amount of traffic we handle and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity."

  • Which explains why Union Pacific has spent over $3 million on lobbying activities so far this year, including efforts to oppose the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

  • Not surprisingly, Union Pacific is a member of the beleaguered coal coalition known as ACCCE, which is hemorrhaging members opposed to its extremist agenda on climate change legislation.

Clearly, Union Pacific is worried about what climate legislation would do to its business, and decided to oppose the climate bill that the US House passed in June.

It's easy to understand Union Pacific's interest in maintaining its lucrative coal traffic. Union Pacific and BNSF, another giant railroad (and ACCCE member!) have invested hundreds of millions over the last 25 years in a joint rail line capable of moving the coal.

It's a big deal to these companies – they even issued a press release celebrating the 200,000th rail car of coal being shipped out of the Basin, an event memorialized in this group picture – which happens to show that the coal being shipped in the 200,000th train came from a coal mine owned by Peabody Energy (another ACCCE member! and one of the four US Chamber board members that opposes climate policy.)

(Arch Coal and Western Fuels Association (both ACCCE members!) didn't make the picture I guess, even though they also have coal mines in the same region and rely on Union Pacific to move their coal.  In fact, every one of Arch Coal's western mines rely on Union Pacific trains.)

So to review:   The President of the US Chamber of Commerce, who is resisting calls from his own board members to stop fighting against federal climate policy, is being richly compensated by Union Pacific, a company which — along with some of its key businesses partners — is vigorously fighting against federal climate policy..

This isn't actually the first time that Mr. Donohue's potential conflicts of interest have come up. In 2005, the New York Times reported on concerns about Mr. Donohue's roles on corporate boards, though at the time climate policy was not one of the issues mentioned.

So, it would seem fair for some of the companies on the Chamber board that want to move forward – Johnson & Johnson, Nike, PNM Resources, Dow, and recent ACCCE abandoners Duke and Alcoa – to wonder whether they are getting railroaded. And it would seem fair to ask Tom Donohue to explain how he's going to address this apparent conflict of interest.

Bumble Bee, Dell, DuPont, FPL, Google, HP, Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss, Nike, PG&E and Xanterra urge the Senate to pass a bill this year that will cut GHG emissions and "jumpstart a clean energy economy": "A rapidly changing climate is reshaping the American landscape and poses a long-term threat to our nation's economy and to our children's future."

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 04:52 AM PDT

The U.S. Senate is about to begin an historic debate over whether to pass comprehensive legislation to create a clean energy economy and combat climate change. We are writing this open letter to urge the Senate to pass a bill this year that will reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and harness market forces to spur technological innovation, invest in effective solutions, and jumpstart a clean energy economy – both in the U.S. and around the world.

So begins an open letter to the Senate last week from a dozen leading businesses.   These companies speak from their own experience reducing emissions while increasing profits:

We have reformed business practices in order to curb emissions. In our experience, these changes have not only been good for the climate, they've been good for business. We are now urging Congress to undertake comparable reforms on behalf of our nation, for the benefit of all nations. In June, the House of Representatives did its part by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

We now ask the Senate to pass its own legislation to build a 21st century clean energy economy and address the global challenge of climate change. We need to ensure that U.S. climate legislation makes major reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions in an economically sound way across the U.S. economy.

The scientific evidence is clear. In a recently released study begun under the Bush Administration, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists details the damaging climate impacts already affecting our nation with negative consequences for our farms and forests, our crops and coastlines, and our wildlife and water resources. A rapidly changing climate is reshaping the American landscape and poses a long-term threat to our nation's economy and to our children's future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that unless global emissions of greenhouse gases peak and begin to decline in the next 10-15 years, we are likely to face severe and even catastrophic impacts.

Our companies have long recognized that unchecked carbon emissions are resulting in large-scale climate change that threatens serious economic, social and environmental consequences. We also recognize that this is a global challenge requiring a global response. As leading companies committed to creating real solutions, we are proving that it is possible to grow our businesses while reducing our collective climate impact. We recognize that ignoring climate change is not an option. The real threat to our long-term economic growth is a failure to take action.

With this joint letter, we wish to make clear to the American public and their elected officials that leading voices in the business community believe it is in our interest for the U.S. to act swiftly to address climate change. Passing legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions will send a strong signal to the private sector unleashing new business opportunities, leveling the playing field for all U.S. businesses and ensuring that the U.S. economy can compete in growing global markets for clean energy. By acting now, in advance of critically important climate talks in Copenhagen this December, the Senate will show that the U.S. takes climate change seriously and intends to lead the world to a solution.

America can and must prosper in the face of growing climate change. Our companies have taken the first step by showing the economic opportunities of strong climate action. Now it is the Senate's turn. For the sake of our economy, our national security and our children's future, we urge you to act without delay.

Kudos.

E&E: Reid says cap-and-trade bill MAY wait till 2010

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 04:29 PM PDT

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzoA52PDv0t46Xrs638DxYMbqs1iVnNWwAd01T6LTDgEVXJj8K2kVUxXSQrOh3seco7-55wOLgnVHCrfc5Tq0GXfSHfdZGBkYa-EeggSpo1hO96Y6bfxamYswUaCsB1xCX6okPXspURZY/s320/DogBitesMan.jpgSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today said the Senate may not act on comprehensive energy and climate change legislation until next year, given the chamber's busy fall schedule.

This E&E News PM (subs. req'd) piece is mostly a "Dog Bites Man" story — especially with the key qualifier "may" — isn't really news to anybody who's been paying attention or reading this blog:

I'd say right now it's about 50-50 we get a vote this year,  and as readers know, I don't think it matters terribly much.  There's gonna be a Senate vote on a climate bill — that is clear from Obama's decision to speak at U.N. special session on global warming (and Todd Stern's testimony). Even Inhofe knows that.  We get one bit at this man apple, so the key is to work hard and pick the best time to pass the damn thing.

That said, I'd say the ideal time for a vote might be the first week in December, right before the international conference at Copenhagen.  That's when maximum attention and pressure can be brought to bear on this historical vote.  But I do expect Copenhagen to 1) not have a final deal but 2) to move the negotiations forward, so  having the debate and vote in January can also work.

I do think this vindicates my original recommendation back in January that "Obama needs to pass in 2009 the mother of all energy bills" and then pass a climate bill in early 2010.  But now I think it is much too late to split the bills, as much as some members might like that.  Nor does it appear that is Reid's preference:

Speaking to reporters about the possibility of taking up the bill this fall, Reid said the Senate must first finish work on health care and regulatory reform.

"So, you know, we are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year," Reid said. "And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged the current focus on health care but said he is hopeful climate will remain part of the packed agenda this year. Asked whether he and Reid are discussing the climate and energy bill amid the current health care push, Durbin said, "It's all health care, all the time. I shouldn't say all the time, because we have a list of about a dozen things we have to do, and that is one of the elements that we want to finish before the end of the year."

Reid also downplayed but did not rule out the possibility that Democrats could decide to move the energy piece separately from the climate change portion.

"That was an initial discussion that we had many, many months ago," Reid said. "We've focused on what the House has done, and that is do it all in one package.. But we have — that's a bridge that's still a long ways away."

The House has passed a climate bill with shrinking emissions caps, and that's what the Senate needs to do in order for there to be a global deal and have a serious chance of  averting catastrophe.

Related Post:

Inhofe flip-flops, admits the climate bill is "Alive and Well" — thanks to grassroots clean energy push

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 11:58 AM PDT

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/y/f/1/gore_inhofe.jpg

Right after the House passed the climate and clean energy bill, uber-denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL) told Tulsa World that, from a Senate perspective, "It's dead in the water."

In a CleanSkies op-ed Monday titled, "Sen. Inhofe: GOP Beware: Though Now Stalled, Cap-and-Trade is Alive and Well," admits, the climate bill "is very much alive."  But  what is most amazing about this op-ed is the unintentionally revealing explanation Inhofe offers for the revival of the bill's chances:

… their [Democrat's] allies outside the Beltway are preparing a massive $20 million campaign to push legislation forward.

This effort should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes cap-and-trade is dead and buried—it is very much alive.

Inhofe uses the term "outside the Beltway" as if that's a bad thing.  Only to a guy like Inhofe, who kowtows to DC's Big Oil lobbyists, are people "outside the Beltway" some sort of foreign entity whose actions are to be criticized and attacked.

Yes, despite the massive disinformation campaign from Inhofe's polluter buddies, grassroots organizations and the American public want action on the climate and clean energy bill, as every major recent poll shows:

What has caused Inhofe to flip flop, to feel he needs to go on the attack for legislation he claimed was headed to the morgue?

Green groups are repackaging cap-and-trade as "clean energy legislation."

No, not  repackaging — this was always pushed as a climate and clean energy jobs bill.  And it is not just the "green groups" pushing the key messages (see "Clean Energy Works launches: New grassroots effort unites faith, labor, veterans, environmental, sportsmen, business, youth, farm, and community groups to fight for for clean air, clean water, clean energy job bill").  But the grassroots have gotten organized — and that  is always scary to someone who is trying to block what the American public wants.

And you can skip the rest of the op-ed.  It is Inhofian disinformation, which I'd call par for the course, except that most of his falsehoods are double bogeys

White House rolls out details of fuel economy, emissions standard — The biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken to cut CO2

Posted: 15 Sep 2009 11:38 AM PDT

Back in May,  the Obama administration announced it would move forward on national standards for new vehicle fuel economy and tailpipe greenhouse gas emission (see here):

"This is a very big deal," said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. "This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions."

Today the Administration rolled out the final details.  The AP reports:

The Obama administration is unveiling plans to require higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and tougher rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson planned to release the proposed regulations Tuesday. They call for the auto industry's fleet of new vehicles to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. The plan follows up on President Barack Obama's announcement in May that the government regulations would link emissions and fuel economy standards.

Greenwire (via the NYT) notes, "The carbon dioxide limit under the plan — which will apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles — would reach an average of 250 grams per mile per vehicle in 2016."

The Obama administration estimated earlier this year the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 but take just three years to pay off the investment and save about $2,800 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.

During a visit to a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio, Obama said the new standards are overdue.

"This action will give our auto companies some long-overdue clarity, stability and predictability," he said….

A congressional official briefed on the details said the proposal was expected to increase vehicle fuel efficiency by about 5 percent annually, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and save an average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs. The plan would also conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly in advance of the White House announcement.

The administration was expected to note that the proposal's plan to reach 35.5 mpg by the 2016 model year would put it four years ahead of a 2007 law approved by Congress that would have required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average in 2020.

Kudos to team Obama.

Click here (pdf) to read the notice of intent.

UPDATE:  Dan Becker has issued a statement:

"Keeping President Obama's promise, today's proposed clean car rule is the biggest single step the US has taken to curb global warming and our oil addiction.   It demonstrates to the world that the United States is now confronting the threat of global warming.  It shows that we can use the Clean Air Act and other existing laws to tackle the pollution spewing from vehicles and power plants.

"Controlling global warming pollution is auto mechanics, not rocket science.  All automakers have the advanced technologies – engines, transmissions, high strength, lightweight materials and aerodynamics — to safely achieve this new standard and to go beyond it.

"The devil is in the details. Detroit's lobbyists have done their best to riddle this decision with credits and other loopholes.  We urge the Administration to close these loopholes or implement an automatic backstop to ensure that the president's promise of 35.5 mpg average vehicles in 2016 will be kept."