Don't Yank the Tariff Provisions from the House Climate Change Bill
President Obama deserves a share of the credit for the historic vote by the House June 26 to pass the first climate change bill. The bill is far from perfect, but it is an important step in the right direction. In comments following the House vote, however, President Obama took a step in the wrong direction. In urging the Senate to swiftly pass their counterpart to the House bill, President Obama raised questions about a provision that would impose a tariff on the import of goods from countries where the cost of such good benefits from weaker climate change laws:
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there….I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary, given all the other stuff that was done and had been negotiated on behalf of energy-intensive industries."
Continue Reading...House of Representatives Passes Groundbreaking Climate and Energy Bill -- The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) Now Heads to the Senate for Debate
Late last week, the House of Representatives narrowly approved game-changing climate change legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), also called Waxman-Markey (HR 2454), the first major environmental legislation to be approved by either the House or the Senate in almost twenty years. Much has already been said about ACES that industry may find confusing, and this alert sorts out what the bill does -- and doesn't -- do and identifies the key issues you will need to address as the debate moves to the Senate.
Continue Reading...The Importance of Incentivizing the Agricultural Industry to Participate in Climate Change Response (and How Did We Forget About Biochar)?
There has been plenty of criticism - some warranted, some not - of new language, pushed by the farm lobby, governing carbon offsets in the climate change legislation. Prior to this amendment, precisely what qualified as an offset was unstated. EPA would be given responsibility for promulgating rules that would define offsets, within broad parameters set forth in the legislation. By contrast, Title V - "Agricultural and Forestry Related Offsets" - identifies an "initial list" of specific types of agricultural and forestry practices that would qualify as offsets, and gives the Department of Agriculture authority to establish a program governing the generation of offset credits from agricultural and forestry-based sources.
Continue Reading...The Loyal Opposition -- Take 2
Recently I wrote about the need for smart criticism from those opposed to Henry Waxman's cap-and-trade plan. This week, former Virginia Governor George Allen who is out touting his new energy policy think tank, made it clear that smart criticism won't come from him. Allen did an interview with Monica Trauzzi on Energy & Environment TV. A transcript is posted at E&E here (subscription required) and Allen's talking points were positively backward. Here's a taste:
Monica Trauzzi: So, do you see a way forward about how we can handle the global warming issue legislatively then?
George Allen: Well, and this is all supposedly for global warming and they estimate 50 years from now there'll be some negligible impact on climate. Gosh, you watch the news and they'll only forecast about four or five days out and a lot of times those aren't right forecasts. I'm not a meteorologist, but they rarely get those right and they're trying to forecast 10, 50 years from now.
Continue Reading...Black Carbon Impact on People and the Planet
The justly well-regarded Health Effects Institute is out with a new study that has obvious implications for public health, but I believe it should impact the climate change debate as well.
The study suggests people exposed to airborne soot are nearly twice as likely to die from heart disease that previously thought. Here's a description from The New York Times article:
The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase.
A variety of sources produce fine particles, and they include diesel engines, automobile tires, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.
When you see the source of these emissions, you can start to see why this public health study makes climate news as well.
Continue Reading...How to Win China and India
Reagan-era economist Martin Feldstein weighed in on the current cap-and-trade plan under consideration in Congress with an op-ed in today's Washington Post.
I'd like to celebrate his contribution, since I noted last week how little thoughtful criticism was coming from Republicans, but unfortunately I can't. Feldstein uses dubious logic and selective inputs to argue that the Waxman Markey bill is a bad idea.
Feldstein argues that the cost of the scheme to taxpayers -- $1600 per typical household, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate -- is too high since the impact on global warming would be "virtually unnoticeable." Instead, Feldstein argues, the United States "should wait until there is a global agreement that includes China and India."
I agree with Feldstein that climate change cannot be solved without the cooperation of China and India. But unless and until the United States takes a leadership role in battling climate change, those two countries are not going to play ball.
Continue Reading...The Loyal Opposition
The Waxman-Markey bill that the House Energy & Commerce Committee's approved on last week is flawed. But it represents the first serious step to examining one of the most pressing issue of our time.
Fights over social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and health care, are trivial when you consider the future of the billion people who depend on water Asian glaciers that could disappear in a matter of decades.
It is against this backdrop that I must comment on the state of the country's opposition party, the Republicans.
I'm not the first. Frank Rich and Jim Hightower, as well as many others, have made this observation in the past few weeks. But when it comes to climate change, the GOP's performance is particularly unsettling.
Paint the Roofs White
A low-cost, low-tech solution to fight climate change just won an endorsement from Energy Secretary Stephen Chu yesterday: paint the roofs white.
The idea is simple: Black roofs absorb most radiation as opposed to white roofs which reflect a good bit more. A two-page summary of a technical paper done by an old colleague of Chu's at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and a commissioner on the California Energy Commission advances the concept:
Most existing flat roofs are dark and reflect only 10 to 20 percent of sunlight. Resurfacing the roof with a white material that has a long-term solar reflectance of 0.60 or more increases its solar reflectance by at least 0.40. Akbari et al. estimate that so retrofitting 100 m2 (1000 ft2) of roof offsets 10 tonnes of CO2 emission. (For comparison purposes, we point out that a typical US house emits about 10 tonnes of CO2 per year.)
So painting 1,000 square feet of black rooftop white can offset the emissions of a typical US household. Or in the big picture, as Chu pointed out, lightening the color of roads and roofs could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.
Continue Reading...Auto Mileage and Carbon Emissions Agreement: Harbinger of Good Things to Come?
This week, President Obama announced a plan to increase national automobile emissions and mileage standards for cars and trucks in the United States starting in 2012. If it survives a public review process, this agreement will create a single new national standard for the US car and light truck fleets that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today -- an average 35.5 miles per gallon (as reported in the NY Times).
The announcement resonates loudly in national climate change policy, because it marks the first federal regulatory standard for carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. It will also mean federal regulation of a sector (transportation) which accounts for a third of the nation’s carbon emissions.
The announcement also resonates in the energy community, since President Obama predicted that as result of the agreement, demand for oil would fall by 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold over the next five years.
It is also significant in the broader national quest for overall air quality improvements because per-mile-traveled particulate, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions will drop as well.
Continue Reading...Chairman Waxman's Climate Bill
To paraphrase German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, don't ask how legislation or pork pies are made.
Think of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's new compromise on climate legislation as freshly baked pork pie.
Let's first consider the US emissions reductions goals. Did the Committee bake a pie small enough to get the US on the track to meeting scientifically defensible emissions reductions targets? No.
The bill would cap emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the original draft’s 20 percent below. Committee chair/chef Henry Waxman essentially promised (again with some poetic license to your author) to bake a smaller pie -- later. He noted the bill retains its original target reductions in the future: 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. We will see -- later.
