Climate Change

Senate cloture bid on energy bill fails is the story this morning from “The Hill.”  With 60 votes necessary to close debate and proceed to a vote on the superb energy package that came over from the House yesterday, only 53 votes could be mustered.  Three Democrats, Byrd, Landrieu and Bayh voted against closure.  Byrd (coal) and Landrieu (oil) were predictable, but Bayh’s vote is a bit of a mystery, to me anyway.  On the Republican side, I can’t understand why some of these “Moderate” Republicans would vote against cloture, people like Sununu, Specter and Hagel, except that they need to stay on the “reservation.”  What’s completely inexplicable to me is why John Warner, coauthor of the climate change bill in the Senate, would vote against this energy package which should be considered a precursor and complement to a climate change package.  Back to the drawing board, as the Senate Republican pointman on energy, Pete Domenici, has promised, according to the article from “The Hill.”  Oh well, as I’ve said before here, it’s usually wise not to make the best the enemy of the good.  (“Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” – Voltaire.) 

Meanwhile, down in Bali, at the climate change talks, the head of the U.S. delegation has declared “…that neither a recent US Senate committee move to limit greenhouse gas emissions or the decision by Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol would influence their stance” on mandatory GHG reductions.  (See my post from Dec. 5 on the Senate’s action and this from Nov. 25 on Australia’s new PM and his signing of the Kyoto Protocols.)  See the story from Agence France Presse, US sticks to divisive climate change policy: official. 

As noted here on Dec. 2, at least the U.S. has what appears to be a constructive proposal on trade and fostering environmental goods and services.

Meanwhile, our brothers and sisters in Germany are leading the charge against global warming.  See another AFP story, Germany passes ‘ambitious’ climate change package, from yesterday.  Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said:  “Germany wants to show that a developed country can reconcile economic growth with protection of the environment.” And Economy Minister Michael Glos said Europe’s biggest economy was aiming for “intelligent and ambitious climate protection.” Germany is shooting for a 25 to 30% share of energy production by renewables by 2020 — and we’re going to cut our 15% proposal loose to satisfy the utility industry.  As noted the other day, Scotland has set a target of 50% of all electricity from renewables by 2020,” according to the “Press Association” here.  More power, as it were, to them — and shame on us, or at least on our dysfunctional politics, so seriously flawed by special interest influence.

Is this shying away from our extraordinary potential to change the way we use energy and the way our economy is shaped an indication of the will of the American people?  Apparently not.  An analysis of recent international poll results not only indicate Robust Global Support For Increased Efforts to Reduce Emissions but that a majority of Americans (54%) disapproved of how the United States was handling global warming. 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi referenced this famous line from Emerson’s “The Concord Hymn” in talking about the energy bill being passed out of the House today.   Her idea is that Congress can start a new American Revolution with passage of this legislation.   It’s called the “Energy Independence and Security Act” and we’ve talked about it for months here.  I, for one, had more or less despaired of our country coming to its senses so that legislation of this magnitude could even be reasonably considered in the halls of Congress.  We are not far from passage of this legislation into law.  The whole world is watching, absolutely.

The final vote today in the House was 235 aye, 181 nay.

The Senate – The Committee on Environment and Public Works today marked up the “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act” (S. 2191).  This has the support of America’s leading environmental organizations, a coalition of four major religious organizations, and the Apollo Alliance, an initiative by labor unions and others to rejuvenate “our nation’s economy by creating the next generation of American industrial jobs and treating clean energy as an economic and security mandate to rebuild America.”  (See their letter of support.)  The A.P. reporter on this beat, H. Josef Hebert, filed this story late this afternoon:  Senate panel takes global warming bill, and here’s a good summary from the “NY Times” (appearing on 12/6), Senate Panel Passes Bill to Limit Greenhouse Gases.  The full Senate won’t take this up until next year, but now we’ve got a place to hang our hat. 

This is getting good!

Cross your fingers.  The House of Representatives might yet include critical provisions that are devoutly to be wished.  Reuters reports that a letter sent by the House Democratic leadership today to its members says the pending bill, due for a vote in the House tomorrow or Thursday, would have a provision that “strengthens and extends existing renewable energy tax credits” and another that would “repeal about $21 billion in tax subsidies extended to big oil and gas producers.”  That’s more than the $16 billion figure that was in the bill passed in early August.  See House seeks tax incentives for renewable energy.  The article says “the bill would repeal reduced tax rates for major integrated oil companies, drop foreign income tax deductions for companies that produce oil and natural gas overseas and drop a tax break for companies to write off some exploration expenses.”  Stay, as they say, tuned!

Renewable fuel compromise key to bill is the headline from A.P. and we learn, among other things, that “Democratic leaders working on an energy bill were trying to forge compromises Monday to increase the use of renewable fuels both in cars and by electric utilities after reaching a deal earlier that would raise vehicle fuel economy by 40 percent.”  We are further given an indication of a timetable:  “The plan is for a House vote on the compromise bill on Thursday with the Senate taking up the energy package perhaps the following week.”

Meanwhile, here’s a little inside baseball on Speaker Pelosi’s juice from the “NY Times”:  Fuel Bill Shows House Speaker’s Muscle.  If she’s being praised by the oldest old bull in the House, “Big John” Dingell, Pelosi seems to have more than earned her stripes:  “She is doing a good job.  She is a strong speaker, and I am doing my best to work with her and she is doing her best to work with me.”

In a comprehensive report from the authoritative Washington resource, “The Hill,” we learn about some of the many things that are still in play.  Losing renewable energy tax credits and a new building code standard to increase the efficiency of homes and businesses would hurt a lot. 

Maybe - just maybe - we’ll only have to wait a bit more than a year now to start to get really serious about energy and climate change with our government here.

I’ll leave you with this animated short, “Higher Ground,” from Pulitzer Prize-winning “Houston Chronicle” cartoonist Nick Anderson.

The U.S. government seems to be making a truly constructive move on climate change for a change.  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced an agreement today between the U.S. and the E.U. proposing “…eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services, particularly clean energy technologies.”  Trade Representative Susan Schwab will go to Bali to the Trade Ministers meeting there to recommend that the WTO incorporate this proposal.  According to “…data on environmental indicators available from the World Bank and World Resources Institute, countries that trade more environmental goods either have less pollution or consume energy more efficiently, or both.”

The proposal builds on the work of a new report from the World Bank:  International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives.  The report finds that “…a multilateral liberalization of renewable energy sources or an agreement to remove fossil fuel subsidies would equally serve climate change objectives.”

I would suggest the former idea is feasible, not the latter.  I don’t mean to suggest that we are entering the realm of political fantasy, at least as far as the United States goes, but if the WTO nations can’t find agreement on removing $300 billion in annual supports to the U.S., E.U., and Japan’s farmers – in order to free up a trillion dollars worth of agricultural output by the developing world – then how can anyone expect to close up the candy shop at the U.S. Treasury that the oil, gas and coal folks have been shopping from for many long years?  Witness the brouhaha that removing $16 billion in tax breaks the oil and gas industry are getting now – while oil’s selling at nearly $100 a barrel – then consider how easy it would be to knock even more of the subsidies they enjoy out of the picture.  (See “Denial Of Oil And Gas Tax Benefits” at the House of Representatives’ tax portion of the proposed congressional energy bill.  This good bit of legislation is under heavy fire, though, from the industry and the White House, so the Congressional leadership may jettison it.)

But more power to the U.S. and E.U. trade mandarins if they can, as the World Bank suggests, increase trade in climate and clean energy technologies an additional 7-14 percent annually by removing tariffs and non-tariff barriers.

Meanwhile, in what might be construed as a hopeful (but not necessarily realistic) headline, the “Environmental News Service” claims Fossil Fuels’ Free Ride Is Over.  The ENS reports that at the American Council On Renewable Energy’s fourth annual conference, participants all agreed that “the day of reckoning is long overdue” for a carbon price.  Conferees included a representative from British Petroleum, their Group VP for Alternative Energy.  She’s got a reasonable argument, but …. you can judge.  Go here for a number of the conferees’ presentations, including the one from the BP rep.

Dems Reach Deal on Energy Bill is the headline from A.P. this morning.  What’s in?  A 40% boost in the CAFE standards for the automakers and a 15% renewable portfolio standard for the utilities.  What’s out?  It appears that the rescission of the $16 billion tax breaks presently being enjoyed by the oil and gas industry is out.  Other provisions, as noted over the past several months here, include a big boost on energy efficiency, a closer look at “smart grids,” expansion of biofuels, and some other good provisions.  (See Quick Update on Energy Bills, And the Winner Is …, and Federal Energy Legislation, among other posts going back to June.) 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement late last night after the negotiations were successfully concluded.  “CAFE will serve as the cornerstone of the energy legislation that will be on the House floor next week,” said Pelosi.  Energy and Commerce Committee Chair, John Dingell, referring to the CAFE standards, said in his statement:  “… I  believe the agreement reached today prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable.”

With agreement by the key Democrats in both houses of Congress, the A.P. article notes that “…the legislation, while criticized by most Republicans, is expected to have smooth sailing.”  The deal breaker for the White House would have been pulling back the $16 billion tax break for Big Oil and Gas, so the Congressional leadership opted not to have the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Frustrating perhaps to many of us, but probably wise in the end. 

I want to celebrate this victory, but I also want to fully note that this country could do so much better if certain special interests didn’t have undue clout on the Hill.  Back in June when the tax rescission was defeated in the Senate version of the legislation, the Energy Committee Chair, Jeff Bingaman said:  “Oil companies earned $111 billion in profits last year and at that rate stand to earn $1 trillion over the 10 years covered by the tax package” rejecting suggestions that “‘this is an undue burden’ on oil companies.”  An A.P. story around the same time quoted Majority Leader Harry Reid:  “‘Big Oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill,’ Reid told reporters, making no effort to hide his sarcasm.” 

Meanwhile, in Scotland, as just one example where others have much higher aspirations than we do because they are not being held back by special interests, “Ministers want 31% of Scotland’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2011.  And they have set a target of 50% of all electricity from renewables by 2020,” according to the “Press Association” here.  Scotland 50%, the U.S. 15%.  Notice any disparity? 

There are miles to go before we sleep, or at least before we get to a zero carbon world.