Monthly Archives: August 2009

National Security: Climate Bill Protects America

Sometimes, national security is not just a matter of having a larger army, or superior weapons, or better intelligence. It also means preserving political stability around the world, and spreading economic prosperity as widely as possible.

Instability encourages ideological extremism, and poverty provides a steady supply of terrorist recruits, which can directly affect U.S. security. From Afghanistan to Somalia, we’ve seen how weak states and economic hardship can lay the foundation for political crisis and war.

Many military leaders say global warming poses a grave threat to our security, precisely because it will promote economic instability and political unrest around the world. Former Republican Sen. John Warner, a staunch and highly respected supporter of the U.S. military, strongly supports action on climate change, in part for national security reasons. Read Senator Warner’s recent testimony supporting U.S. leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [PDF]

Climate change is what military analysts call a “threat multiplier,” meaning it will intensify problems that already threaten us. Here is what a world with an unstable climate might look like:

  • We’ll see more crop failures and drought, famine, and disease, leading to mass migrations of people across borders
  • Scarcity will cause more frequent wars over natural resources, such as water.
  • A sea level rise of three feet – near the low end of predictions for 2100 – would create 100 million environmental refugees around the world.

To make matters worse, much of this will happen in volatile regions already on the brink.

Don’t take our word for it. Here’s what military leaders and experts say:

  • In a recent report, eleven retired U.S. admirals and generals cited that growing instability from climate change is leading to greater U.S. military operations abroad. Among them were Gen. Gordon Sullivan, former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and former Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni. According to Sullivan, “We have to act now [on global climate change] if we are to avoid the worst effects.”
  • Likewise, the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has issued a report on the national security impacts of climate change [PDF] predicting that global warming will produce “heightened internal and cross-border tensions caused by large-scale migrations; conflict sparked by resource scarcity, particularly in the weak and failing states of Africa; increased disease proliferation, which will have economic consequences; and some geopolitical reordering as nations adjust to shifts in resources and prevalence of disease.” Among the authors was James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. The board of CSIS includes former National Security Advisors Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft.
  • Finally, the National Intelligence Council completed the first-ever National Intelligence Assessment of climate change last year. Although the report is classified, the chairman of the Council summarized key findings before a Congressional committee: “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years.” [PDF]

The climate bill now before Congress will help avert widespread and dangerous environmental changes that would lead to global instability, by cutting greenhouse gas emissions 83 percent by 2050. Another benefit will be reducing our reliance on imported oil. The U.S. has five percent of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil. Much of the world’s oil comes from the Mideast, a focal point of political instability and extremism, making reduced dependence on imported oil a national security imperative. By moving the U.S. toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, the climate bill will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels like oil.

Many of the nation’s top military leaders and foreign policy experts are calling global warming a national security threat, as well as a critical environmental threat. Congress needs to avert this coming crisis by passing the climate bill.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Link: Veterans and National Security Experts on Global Warming

Screen shot of the web site about national security and climate change

A coalition of national security and veterans organizations launched a new web site today about the dangers of climate change.

It’s a great way to show people what’s at stake for our troops and our country in the climate change debate.  It’s called Operation Free.

Thanks to Vote Vets, Vet PAC, The Truman National Security Project, and NSI for putting this together.

Posted in What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

Filling the Gap Left by an Industry Group’s Canceled Announcement

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) were scheduled to release their new report on the economic impacts of the climate bill passed by the House today. They had planned a conference call to brief members of the media.

Unfortunately, they canceled – and left participating journalists without a story about the climate bill for today.

To fill that gap, Environmental Defense Fund has compiled some facts about the climate bill (ACES) from the most recent studies and most reputable sources out there. There’s plenty of information available; hopefully this will help journalists meet their deadlines.

  • The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the cap on carbon pollution in ACES can be achieved for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person. One of the reasons for the affordability is that increases in electricity and natural gas bills of consumers are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies. More about the study.
  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that ACES would cost the average household $175 a year by 2020, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. The CBO also found that the poorest 20 percent of American households would actually see a net cash gain under the bill of about $40 in 2020. The study factored in the value of emissions allowances that will be rebated to consumers.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the cost of a carbon cap at $88-$140 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person. (Sound familiar?)
  • The Energy Information Administration (see above) also says that ACES would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. would reduce its consumption of oil by 344 million barrels in the year 2030 alone, a cut of more than 12 percent from predicted imports for the same year without the bill.  To put that figure in perspective, 344 million barrels of oil are worth almost $26 billion today.
  • The United States Global Change Research Program, better known as the NOAA report, found that America will face hundreds of billions of dollars in costs if we don’t take steps to stop climate change. The cost of inaction will include: sea level rise of as much as two feet that will destroy property along our coasts; stronger hurricanes and other storms that will damage cities; and severe droughts that will devastate agricultural sectors. More highlights from the report.
  • LessCarbonMoreJobs.org shows thousands of U.S. companies that are already working in the energy efficiency or clean energy sectors, and are poised to grow under the carbon cap. EDF created this website to map out, state-by-state, where clean energy jobs are likely to be produced.
  • NAM/ACCF’s study from last year was seriously flawed. It looked at the earlier Lieberman-Warner bill, but it ignored important provisions of the legislation and imposed artificial constraints on the economy’s ability to reduce emissions. The analysis presumed there would be no banking of emission allowances and only limited use of offsets. The study also artificially constrained the use of renewable energy and carbon capture and storage. NAM has a long history of opposing virtually every major environmental law that’s been proposed, often using similar bad arguments with flawed data. Of course, they have a chance to get it right this year- once they finally release their new study.
Posted in Economics / Comments are closed

Keeping on the Heat at Hearing after Hearing

The dog days of summer are making everything seem slow and sleepy — except in Congress, where efforts to finish work on clean energy legislation are in high gear. (You might have guessed this from our super-charged pace of blog posting today!)

In addition to everything else going on, EDF experts are busy testifying at hearings on the Hill:

  • Last week, Jennifer Havercamp testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about intellectual property rules and how they’ll affect the development of new technologies to fight climate change.
    (See her written testimony [PDF].)
  • Tuesday, Nat Keohane testified before the Senate Finance Committee about how clean energy legislation will strengthen the economy.
    (See his written testimony [PDF].)
  • And tomorrow, Fred Krupp is testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The hearing is on “Climate Change and Ensuring that America Leads the Clean Energy Transformation.” Fred is summing up all the evidence that we can meet 2020 emissions targets – at low cost – while creating jobs. (Update: Here’s a link to the written testimony.)

Between all this testimony, reviewing new analyses and studies, and launching a new ad campaign, we are keeping the heat on Congress this summer!

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

EIA Analysis: Climate Bill Will Cut America’s Oil Addiction for About a Dime a Day

A just-released analysis from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the cap on carbon pollution in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) can be achieved for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person.

One of the reasons it’s so affordable is that increases in consumers’ electricity and natural gas bills are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies.

Nat Keohane, EDF’s director of economic policy and analysis, says this:

This analysis confirms what every other credible study has found, and it – once again – refutes the widely reported scare tactics about the cost of the cap and trade bill. Opponents of action will always try to cherry-pick the numbers and use models with biased assumptions. The EPA, EIA and CBO are the non-biased standard for economic analysis.

For a dime a day we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.

The analysis also shows that the climate bill passed by the House would reduce our dependence on foreign oil – the U.S. would reduce its consumption of oil by 344 million barrels in the year 2030 alone, under the provisions of the bill. That’s a cut of more than 12 percent of predicted imports for the same year without the bill.

Other key points about the EIA analysis:

  • It considers only the costs of reducing global warming pollution, and does not take into account the many potential benefits.
  • It has similar findings to two other impartial and substantive studies done recently, from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office.
  • A leaked draft of the EIA report, which was covered in some early media stories, contained an error. The average yearly change in consumption per household for the years 2012-2030 is $83 — NOT $142. The correct figure is in the final version.
Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 5 Responses

Duke Study: Who Will The Climate Bill Regulate?

One of the most common questions about the American Clean Energy and Security Act is, “Who will it cover?” The bill will apply to firms that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

Supporters have always said that meant the bill would only regulate big polluters. Opponents claimed that small businesses, schools, churches – even individuals – could be subject to new government rules.

Now, a new study from Duke University gives us the answer.

Turns out that the 25,000-ton threshhold includes only 1.3 percent of all U.S. manufacturing facilities — a fraction of America’s more than 350,000 sites. However, those few companies are responsible for 82.5 percent of  the manufacturing sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to Duke’s David Cooley:

Large-scale polluters are responsible for a supermajority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, so we can get enormous environmental benefits while regulating a small percentage of firms.

The bill will also apply to about half of the country’s electric power plants, but almost no farms or commercial buildings.

Who’s not on the list? No schools. No churches. No individuals. If you don’t own your own smokestack, you can pretty much count on being exempt.

EDF is proud to have provided funding for the study, which you can download from the Duke site [PDF].

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response