Climate Change

Okay, the suspense, at least on one important item, CAFE, is over for the moment.  The “Washington Post” reports House Drops Tougher Auto Fuel Economy.  Go to Speaker Pelosi’s statement in which she says “… we will have an opportunity to address this issue shortly.  The Senate energy bill does contain a CAFE provision, which I support.”

The remaining issue then is the Renewable Portfolio Standard.  I guess we’ll have to wait to see until tomorrow and the Rules Committee meeting whether or not the Udall-Platts amendment on the RPS will be given consideration on the floor on Friday.  For a little more background and some of the politics of this, here’s a story from “The Gristmill” from the other day on the powerful MoveOn.org’s endorsement of the RPS.

There was an earlier article at the “Washington Post” today, Democrats Lack Unity in House Over Energy Bill.  That’s the understatement of the day.

These politics are murder. Unfortunately, even though every public poll indicates widespread support for increasing our energy efficiency and our use of renewables, and from across the political spectrum, including, increasingly, even traditional conservative groups like Evangelical Christians, some of the political factions in Congress seem stuck in their old thinking.  Anyway, no matter what happens on Thursday in the Rules Committee and Friday on the floor, the conference is going to be epic.

We are poised for a big and hopefully exciting week on energy in the House.  At “CNNMoney.com” there’s a good comprehensive read, Energy debate moves to House, on what to look for this week.  As I’ve pointed out, there are a lot of good things that are not going to be subject to much debate, energy efficiency being among the best.  However, the big-ticket items that are still highly controversial are increased MPG for motor vehicles and a renewable portfolio standard (RPS).  The MPG battle, as you know if you’ve been following the blog, is a pitched battle between Detroit and the people who think we owe it to ourselves to reduce oil consumption for any number of excellent reasons, not the least of which is to reduce our GHG emissions.  What makes Detroit particularly powerful in this case is that the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is John Dingell, and he’s a staunch – and effective – battler for what Detroit perceives to be its best interests.

Here’s my question?  Doesn’t anyone in Detroit think that they might sell more cars if they had better gas mileage performance?  It sure seems to work for the Japanese!

Here’s another article from one of Pelosi’s hometown papers, the “SF Chronicle” - Energy bill will test Pelosi’s command.  This article’s got great coverage and input from key players such as the two authors of the RPS bill as well as comment from environmental lobbyists from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency.  (See these two websites for some comprehensive looks at the legislation and the issues.)

Meanwhile, the House passed a massive Farm bill last week.  There is a considerable energy component.  You can see this fact sheet, 2007 Farm Bill Energy Title:   Investing in Renewable Energy Programs to Promote Energy Independence, to get a pretty good look at what’s in it. 

I’m working on an article now for a print publication on “green airports.”  As Mr. Spock would say:  “Fascinating.”  Here’s an informative video clip from the European Union on aviation and climate change. 

Really well done.  Also, here’s an article from a recent number of “The Economist” - Travelling green tonight. 

National Petroleum Council Report – Okay, I will admit it:  Because this was a report by the National Petroleum Council, from a task force led by ex-Exxon chief and vociferous global warming “skeptic” Lee Raymond, commissioned by a presidential administration that has been famously indifferent, if not hostile, to the environment, I didn’t take much of a look at the news yesterday on this.  However, Facing the Hard Truths About Energy appears to have a few important, timely and surprising, given the source, messages.   An analysis in the “FT” today says the report highlights that we are in “…for a sustained period of tight supply - and that policy needs to start responding to that right now.”  The first and foremost recommendation is to go to the “…fastest technically possible increase in vehicle fuel economy standards.”  Another recommendation is to build an international framework for reducing GHG emissions.  Wow.  Is this really the voice of the oil industry?  The “FT” quotes Daniel Yergin, the task force Vice-Chairman:  “I think it will change the framework of the debate, not just in the US but around the world.”  Yergin is the head of Cambridge Energy Associates and the author of an extraordinary history of the oil industry, The Prize.  If the NPC is serious, they ought to beat the heads of every member of the House of Representatives with a copy of this report, particularly John Dingell.  This report is timely because we are being held up on energy in the House largely because of the MPG problem.  Here’s a major American industry – an understatement if you hadn’t noticed – that says we should be “…doubling miles per gallon by 2030, saving 3m-5m barrels a day of oil demand.”  Yergin also says “The study demonstrates that energy efficiency is a very near-term energy resource, and tapping it is essential to national energy strategy.”

Two Media Notes -  “The Baltimore Sun” has a clear message for Nancy Pelosi:  Bring the fight on MPG to the floor of the House.  Go around John Dingell.  In A fuelish choice, they say “Ms. Pelosi should bring her leadership persuasion to bear…”  Meanwhile, the “L.A. Times” took a big stick to Big John yesterday.  It begins thus:  “A million years of compression and heat may someday convert Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) into petroleum, just as it did the other dinosaurs.”  Ouch.  The editorial centers on Dingell’s cynical offer to introduce carbon tax legislation, admittedly designed to fail, to show that taxes are not going to be embraced by the American people, even if they are to mitigate the climate change crisis.

Center for American Progress – Energy and Congress is at the top of the list today in the daily “Progress Report” from the Center for American Progress.  Here’s an excerpt:  “At least 150 lawmakers have signed onto legislation proposed by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA), which would require a combined average of 35 mpg by 2018. While automakers have vigorously opposed these efforts, better fuel standards may be a boon for both them and drivers. ‘Increasing the average fuel economy of America’s new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry,’ according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, as stricter fuel economy would force large automakers to invest in new, cleaner technologies and machinery.”

Stay tuned.

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an ‘men
Gang aft agley,
An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”

I must say that sometimes the workings of our federal government’s legislative branch, properly known as Congress, aka The Hill, escape me.  Certainly there are disparities in the proportional representation in the Senate which complicate things.  That Wyoming (pop. 515 thousand) or Vermont (pop. 624 thousand) have the same number of representatives in the Senate as California (pop. 36.5 million) or Texas (pop. 23.5 million) might be seen by some as, well, undemocratic.  (Each state also has the same number of representatives as Senate members – exactly two - in the Electoral College, plus, of course, the number of House members.)  Gordon Wood reviewed a couple of books on the Constitution a year and a half ago in the “NY Review of Books” - How Democratic Is the Constitution.  The answer seems to be that there are serious flaws in the Constitution, not the least of which is the decidedly unproportional representation in the Senate.  You can also look at Master of the Senate, the third installment in Robert Caro’s amazing Lyndon Johnson biography, to see how the South controlled the Senate in the 1940’s and 50’s and blocked even the most benign civil rights legislation.

What’s this got to do with climate change?  A lot, I fear.  For instance, when the two Senators from one state, Michigan, hold one brief only – that of the auto manufacturers – in the case of energy legislation that will effectively, enormously reduce our reliance on oil, they throw up roadblocks.  That another Michigan representative, a powerful House committee chair, is given such enormous sway, to block or greatly hinder important legislation, then there’s a fly in the ointment, to say the least.  I’m not even going to get into the psychology of the megalomania in play with some of these folks, let alone the sheer narrow-mindedness.  I’m just thinking about people given too much sway to represent special interests against the interests of the nation, the citizenry, and the health of the planet that supports us all.  The money that simply courses through the system is, of course, another impediment to creating good public policy.

Bob Bingaman and Arlen Specter are introducing a “bipartisan” bill in the Senate to address global warming.  It cobbles together bits and pieces of language that’s been kicking around for a few years.  It’s weak.  It also – and this is where I get really confused – is being introduced before we know what the energy legislation is going to be.  (See my posts below on the Congressional action - and inaction - on energy.)  Why not get the energy bill in place and then see where you are?  There is so much work that still needs to be done to hammer this out.

The Sierra Club called this bill weak.  Here’s what the “NY Times” reported on another important environmental group’s reaction:  “But David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the new bill was evidence that Congress had gotten the message on global warming. Mr. Doniger said that it probably would not pass this year or next, but that the starting point for legislation was moving steadily in the direction of more assertive regulation of heat-trapping gases.

“‘The bills you can’t pass this year are a lot better than the bills you couldn’t pass a year ago,’ Mr. Doniger said.”

On the House side, the energy legislation is still front and center, but as I’ve mentioned here before, the battle between Nancy Pelosi and John Dingell is at the heart of things now.  Will Ms Pelosi override the will of Dingell and move the MPG legislation directly to the floor for a vote in the final consideration on the energy bill?  Here are two recent articles (from “The Hill” and the “Detroit Free Press” respectively) that give you some good insight into this:  Democrats’ climate clash heads to floor and Lawmaker sets up fight in House over fuel rules.

What will be the disposition on some of the other items in play?  Renewable portfolio standards?  Taxes?  Maybe we’ll know more this week.

Dingell v Waxman (and others) – Congressman John Dingell has been in the House of Representatives since 1956.  He holds the seat held by his father from 1933 to 1955.  If you want to follow the federal energy legislation wending its way through Congress, you have to know the players and John Dingell is near the top of the list.  I’ve referenced Big John several times along the way here at the blog, but here’s another useful contribution from “The New Republic.”  (Registration is required, but it’s free.)  Henry Waxman, Dingell’s long-time nemesis, is another critical player, and a hero to old-time enviros like me.  When he was chair of the Health & Environment subcommittee of Dingell’s Energy & Commerce committee back in the 80’s and 90’s, they had some pitched battles.  The TNR article describes the present state of play – or conflict, as the case may be – between them. 

The Oil Drum – Without endorsing anyone’s particular approach to effecting federal legislation, I would simply point out a very useful blog, The Oil Drum – Discussions About Energy and Our Future.  They have a wealth of valuable information on the subject of energy, but particularly, though, they are following the federal legislation.  See this for an update and overview with some excellent links.

“One Planet Leader” – WWF (the NGO formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund) had an eye-grabbing ad in “The Economist.”  “Serious about sustainability?  Ready for the next step?”  Well here’s the punch line:  “One Planet Leaders is an exciting new corporate responsibility programme for business managers and senior executives looking to explore, challenge and apply the latest thinking on sustainability issues.”  If you don’t think business and financial industry leaders are taking this stuff seriously, then here is further tangible evidence.  (You can also see my numerous blog posts referencing all this activity under Business and Economics.)

Media Notes – The Sundance Channel has a website, The Green, with some interesting content, including video.  Also, Hearst Corporation, has a new website in beta:  TheDailyGreen will be half information resource and half social network.  Here’s some more from MediaWeek.

Of course, world media event of the week, if not the summer, should be LiveEarth.  They announced today that “… more than 7,000 ‘Friends of Live Earth’ events are now registered in 129 countries, all 50 states…”  Saturday’s the day.  Even if you can’t make one of the concerts, or Al Gore’s not your main man, you will find a ton of useful information at their website.

Speaking of Al Gore (which I haven’t done in a while), he had an op-ed, Moving Beyond Kyoto, at the “NY Times” yesterday that, predictably, got a lot of attention. 

And speaking of the “NY Times” op-ed page, there is an offering today from the estimable Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, on congestion pricing:  Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock.  (I’ve talked about Livingstone here before.  He was the driving force behind the creation of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.)   

Recycling – I noted two fascinating renewable energy stories the other day (June 25) from The Economist’s recent “Technology Quarterly.”  The truth about recycling is a slightly scary title given this venerable publication’s often-cynical take on things.  However, it is a nicely comprehensive, focused, and upbeat long piece about the enormous role that recycling is playing and can play further.  (I had my own stab at this a few years ago.  I offered the City of New York a master plan for solid waste management – Urban Gold – and it gathered more attention than I could have hoped for at the time.  There are several key elements to the idea, among them:  a materials recovery facility [or MRF], waterborne transportation, and the co-locating of the MRF with an “ecoplex” where the recovered materials could be manufactured into all sorts of useful items.)

We looked at the Senate energy legislation from June 15 to 22.  (See various posts below.)  Now the ball is very much in the court of the House.  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, led a press conference of leading Democratic committee chairs to “Announce America’s ‘Energy Independence Day’ Legislation.”  Frankly, the package, as it now stands, is a lot thinner than what we might’ve hoped for based on some of the earlier rhetoric from Pelosi and other leaders in the House.  The “Washington Post” in House Democrats at Odds Over Energy Bill Provisions talks about why the sights have been lowered. This package does have tougher efficiency standards for appliances, new buildings and lighting, and promotes incentives for a “smart grid” that would help residential and industrial customers use electricity more efficiently.  (I’ve written about this here under the theme of distributed generation.  See this from May.)

John Dingell, a most powerful and feared Democratic committee chairman (and I’ve referenced him and his history several times in these posts) took part in the press conference yesterday.  Here are his comments on the Committee On Energy And Commerce Markup On Energy Policy Legislation.  Unfortunately, he’s more than willing to lay important questions, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard and the MPG question aside.  Dingell said:  “We are proceeding on legislation where there is a consensus. We have left issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal-to-liquids, and a renewable portfolio standard out of the base text.”  Dingell says he wants to wait until the fall and a comprehensive bill devoted to climate change to address these issues.    Go back to the “Washington Post,” though, for more information on the House top leadership’s hopes to get MPG upgrades into draft legislation.  Pelosi Still Wants More Miles Per Gallon is the headline and in it we learn that “Pelosi said she and Dingell, who opposes tough economy standards for the auto industry, were ‘in conversation’ about how to handle the issue.” I noted last week that although the full Senate failed to adopt the Finance Committee’s excellent package of tax breaks and funding for renewables and improved energy efficiency, to be funded largely by the rescission of breaks for the oil and gas industry, the House Ways & Means Committee had approved a more modest package, H.R. 2776 – the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007.   The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also completed work on a great package of initiatives, H.R. 2701 –the Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation Act of 2007.  It, among other things, would: 

• Reduce dependence on fossil fuels and mitigate carbon emissions by promoting greater public transit use;

• Provide additional funding for the use of green technologies by transit systems and railroads;

• Promote short-sea shipping as an alternative to land-based freight transportation.

So, the battles will intensify after the House reconvenes after the July Fourth recess.

And, in a largely symbolic vote, Reuters reports that Wednesday, as part of an environmental funding bill, the US House Passes Bill Affirming Global Warming Exists.  That’s a nice signal from the House, certainly, but more importantly, perhaps, the bill requires “oil companies to renegotiate faulty drilling contracts issued by the government in 1998 and 1999 that have allowed them to avoid paying billions in royalties, or be barred from receiving any new leases to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.”  (We’ll see how that holds up in the conference committee.  President Bush has already threatened to veto it.) 

The Economist’s Technology Quarterly - This has got some interesting items with high-flying wind generators and an ingenious system of drawing cooling power from lakes for air conditioning.

After working in government for 11 years (in a state environmental agency) and having been an environmental and political activist for a fair number of years before, during and after that, I have come to have a healthy skepticism — okay cynicism — about the reach of good public policy in legislation and actual real world practice.  Looking now at the explosion of focus on Washington from the special interests as critical energy legislation is being drafted and debated, I want to shake my head.  “Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose.”  The “NY Times” noted the other day that “Congress Turns to Energy, and Lobbyists Arrive.”

Who’s at the trough?  The coal industry for one.  I touched on some of their views in my item, “Fear and Loathing in Coal Country,” from May 24.  See also “Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process” from the “NY Times.”  To quote from the article:  “Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.”

I guess it doesn’t really matter that environmental analysts from far and wide universally decry the idea of intensifying our existing problems with greenhouse gases and air pollution by using coal as a feedstock for transportation fuels.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, for instance, issued a release the other day titled “Controversial Oil Substitutes Sharply Increase Emissions, Devour Landscapes.”  That’s succinct.  NRDC coauthored a report, Driving It Home - Choosing the Right Path for Fueling North America’s Transportation Future, that terms liquid coal “A ‘Clean Fuel’ Mirage.”  In a nutshell:   

Liquid coal poses disastrous consequences for global warming and local environments, according to the report. The energy required in the production stage of liquid coal would mean twice as much global warming pollution as ordinary gasoline. Mining would tear through natural habitats and contribute to air pollution. Displacing just 10 percent of our total oil demand with liquid coal would require a doubling in coal mining and the construction of hundreds of costly new production facilities – each with its own emissions issues.

The coal industry will very likely see significant funds dedicated toward carbon sequestration and storage research and development.  But is there any bang for the buck in this?  Here’s a revealing graphic from the recent special report from “The Economist” on Business And Climate Change.  (The graphic is courtesy of Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company that is solidly committed to addressing climate change.)

As you can plainly see, all the real bang for the buck is in increasing efficiency, what Amory Lovins has been proving to us for years from his Rocky Mountain Institute and what the U.S. Green Building Council has also been showing developers, architects and planners.  Thankfully, the proposed energy package from the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee addresses the need for efficiency upgrades across the board, as does the Senate Commerce Committee draft as concerns vehicle efficiency, namely the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  (The Vattenfall graphic is pretty clear about the usefulness of increasing vehicle efficiencies.)  Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had a comprehensive summary of all the proposals the other day in his remarks on the floor.  He noted, for one thing:     

Meanwhile, economists take note of our energy policy’s fiscal implications, related to America’s global competitiveness. In 2005 and 2006, our dependence on petroleum imports combined with rising prices to add an estimated $120 billion to our nation’s trade deficit.

Bingaman also noted that:

In addition to the transportation sector, efficiency is a resource we can better deploy in end-uses throughout the U.S. economy.  For example, lighting and common household appliances can account for as much as two-thirds of an average American family’s electricity bills.  By improving a number of appliance efficiency standards, and streamlining and strengthening the Department of Energy’s existing program, consumers stand to collect $12 billion in benefits as a result of provisions included in the underlying legislation.

And, in a delightful and somewhat surprising development, the draft Senate legislation would provide for the conservation of 

… at least 560 million gallons of water per day — or 1.3 percent of daily potable water usage across the nation.  These savings result from provisions that establish the first ever, federal water conservation standards for clothes and dish-washers.

Bingaman said:  “Changing the trajectory of our energy policy is a top priority for this Nation.”  That’s the proverbial mouthful.  The problem is getting the changes through in the face of a massive onslaught of influence by special interests.

Here’s a good look at the issues and players as of yesterday from the “Washington Post.”

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, gave a speech Monday at the Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington in which, in describing the energy package being debated, he said:

Our bill takes several steps:  For the first time in 30 years, it raises CAFE standards for new cars and trucks – to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, with another 4 percent improvement every year thereafter.  I know that the auto industry is still wavering on this issue.  I met with the CEOs of the big three automakers last week, and here is what I told them:  The debate on raising CAFE standards should be over.  It will happen.  And perhaps if they had joined us instead of fighting us these last 20 years, they might not be in the financial mess they’re in today.

Okay, I’ve got to stop and hang my head mournfully.  It’s déjà vu all over again.  Every single time the auto industry has ever been asked to do something in the public interest, from installing seat belts to catalytic converters, to preventing onboard explosions to installing crash bags, and certainly to increasing MPG, they have whined and moaned, wrung their hands and said the consumers don’t want to pay more. 

But they’ve got powerful friends in Congress, not the least of whom is the formidable John Dingell, chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.  I wrote about Dingell under Politics in my post of March 30.  Dingell fought tooth and nail 20 years ago to keep acid rain legislation bottled up.  He would’ve succeeded too had not the first President Bush put his shoulder to the wheel on this issue.

So we’ve been hearing that Dingell has got religion and wants to fight climate change, yet now he wants to set aside the authority the EPA has to regulate GHG from vehicles.  In early April, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs seeking the establishment of just this principle.  I wrote that it was “… probably the most important climate change case to be adjudicated anywhere in the world.”  (See my post of April 3.)  I quoted Dingell then as saying:  “Today’s ruling provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation.”  But Dingell and Rich Boucher, Chairman of the Energy & Air Quality Subcommittee, have offered a bill that would gut this authority and block the efforts by California and 11 other states to regulate GHG from vehicles themselves and offers weaker standards for fuel efficiency for vehicles than even the President’s limp proposal.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not happy with these high-ranking and powerful members of her caucus.  “OMB Watch” has a good take on this.  The Attorneys General of 14 states plus the Corporation Counsel of New York City are also not happy with Dingell and Boucher, as evidenced by their letter of June 6. 

It will take some real initiative and creativity by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jeff Bingaman, and other stalwarts on this issue like Henry Waxman and Ed Markey in the House, and Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein in the Senate, to bring forth good public policy in an energy package.  If it’s a good package, and deftly framed for the public, it will be hard for George Bush to veto it.  Whether we have anything from the Congress before the July Fourth recess is anybody’s guess.  (I would guess not.)  Check your local listings and stay tuned.