Climate 411

Joe Romm’s ‘Straight Up’ is a great resource for fact seekers on climate

Joseph Romm is the author of ClimateProgess.org and was voted the “Web’s most influential climate-change blogger” in 2009. His new work is titled Straight Up-America’s fiercest climate blogger takes on the status-quo media, politicians, and clean energy solutions.

Straight Up is well-researched, provides insightful political analysis, and showcases compelling data on the economic benefits of climate change solutions. As Joe notes:

“So the bottom line is that the economic cost of action is low, whereas the cost of inaction is incalculably greater-what exactly is the ‘price’ of 5 feet of sea level rise in 2100…and losing all of the inland glaciers that provide a significant fraction of water to a billion people? Or the price of losing half the world’s species?”

“China has a excellent track record of achieving gains in energy efficiency and has begun to ramp up its efficiency efforts and aggressively expand its carbon-free electricity targets(recently committing, for instance, to triple its wind goal to 100,000 MW by 2020).”

“…will the United States be a global leader in creating jobs and exports in clean energy technologies or will we be importing them from Europe, Japan, and the likely clean energy leader in our absence, China.”

“A 20 percent reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!”

Purchase Straight Up by Joseph J. Romm

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Link: Dave Roberts on “The Story of Cap and Trade”

Many of you have already seen the video, “The Story of Cap and Trade.” David Roberts of Grist writes,

The greenosphere is all abuzz about a new video from Annie Leonard, creator of semi-famous anti-consumerism video/book The Story of Stuff.

While the video is very engagingly done and gets many things right, it unfortunately gets some important things wrong.

David addresses some of those things in his response to it:

…I think it’s the wrong argument. Activists like Leonard are just mis-identifying the barriers to effective climate action. I’ll have lots more to say on that subject soon, but for now, let’s focus on the video.

Click through to watch the video and read David’s post.

Posted in What Others are Saying / Read 2 Responses

Environmental Defense Fund Welcomes Stabenow Climate Offset Legislation

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow unveiled her new agriculture and forestry title for the Senate climate bill today. The legislation would establish a domestic “offset” program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We gave the measure qualified praise today, saying it gives the Senate an opportunity to craft a consensus approach that delivers low-cost emissions reductions with environmental credibility — but also cautioning that the bill needs more work to guarantee that offsets are environmentally effective.

Here’s the statement from our senior policy manager, John Mimikakis:

Offsets are contentious, but they are essential to effective climate policy. Senator Stabenow deserves praise for trying to find the middle ground and move climate legislation forward.

We have a number of concerns with the bill that we’d like to see addressed as the legislation moves forward. Offsets need to be measured as rigorously as any other emissions reduction. Otherwise there will be little faith in what offset developers are selling and no certainty that we’re achieving pollution reduction goals.

We look forward to working with Senator Stabenow and other members of the Senate to build on the legislation introduced today.

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

Kerry-Boxer Draft Marks Beginning of Senate Climate Change Negotiations

Environmental Defense Fund today welcomed the release of draft legislation that gives the Senate its vehicle for enacting a comprehensive bill to cap U.S. global warming pollution.

“This draft is an important starting point for Senators to negotiate effective climate legislation that can win 60 votes,” said Environmental Defense Fund Legislative Director Elizabeth Thompson.

The discussion draft released today by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry would put a mandatory cap on U.S. global warming pollution and give the private sector the flexibility to pursue the most affordable emissions reduction opportunities.

The draft calls for reducing U.S. emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels in 2020, slightly more than the reductions called for in the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill is silent on how emissions permits would be allocated, leaving room for negotiations as the bill moves forward in the Senate.

“We look forward to working with Chairmen Boxer and Kerry and their colleagues to pass a bill that’s environmentally effective and economically smart,” Thompson said.

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

EPA Sets Requirements for Big Polluters to Disclose Their Annual Emissions

The Environmental Protection Agency is ready to launch America’s first comprehensive national greenhouse gas emissions reporting program.

The EPA announced today that it has finalized the requirements for its new program. That means America’s biggest polluters will have to start publicly disclosing their annual emissions — data we need to create effective federal policy to fight climate change. Data collection will begin January 1, 2010, with disclosure required in the first quarter of 2011.

Mark MacLeod, an EDF expert on climate policy, praised the announcement:

The public has both a need and a right to know about the country’s biggest emitters. The transparency provided today will inform smart policy that targets the biggest sources of heat-trapping emissions.

Here are some key details about the new program:

  • It will apply to about 10,000 large emitters. Those emitters are responsible for about 80-percent of all the heat-trapping gases emitted in the country.
  • It sets a reporting threshold of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. That’s the equivalent of 131 rail cars of coal or 58,000 barrels of oil consumed, or the emissions from the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes.
  • Businesses that emit less than 25,000 tons of emission per year are NOT covered. That means the rule does NOT apply to churches or schools, as some have falsely claimed. The rule also does NOT create the totally spurious  “cow tax.”
  • The rule will cover the most dangerous global warming pollutants including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other fluorinated gases.

The new EPA program is based on valuable efforts that are already underway. Forty-one states are currently participating in The Climate Registry. And since 1995, fossil-fuel fired power plants over 25 megawatts in size have been subject to mandatory reporting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. These two efforts have started providing an important database of emissions. Now the EPA program will allow us to take the next necessary step.

Posted in News / Read 2 Responses

Yet Another CBO Study Shows Small Costs of Clean Energy Legislation

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released another report showing that the costs from clean energy legislation would be small – and could help America avoid the severe economic impacts of climate change.

The report, “The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions,” is based on other previous analysis.

Here are some of the CBO’s main findings:

  • Without policies to reduce carbon pollution, climate change will have negative and possibly severe economic impacts on the United States.
  • With legislation including a cap on carbon pollution, the cost to consumers will be modest, and in line with previous independent estimates.
  • Low-income families (the lowest 20 percent of households) would see purchasing power riseas a result of the House-passed clean energy bill, thanks to the allocation provisions. Higher income households would see a very small increase in costs.
  • The reduction in household purchasing power, taking into account compensation from the allocation provisions, would amount to 0.1-percent in 2012 and 0.8-percent in 2050, with an average of 0.4-percent over the period 2012-2050.
  • Nationally, the House legislation would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) — relative to the no-policy scenario —  by 0.2 to 0.7 percent in 2020; 0.4 to 1.1 percent in 2030; 0.7 to 2 percent in 2040; and 1.1 to 3.4 percent in 2050. At the same time, real GDP is projected to be roughly two and a half times greater in 2050 than today under either scenario. (Note that taking no action would also reduce GDP growth, perhaps to a much greater degree, because of the impacts of climate change.)
  • Annual U.S. economic growth between 2010 and 2050 would be reduced by 0.03 to 0.09 percentage points, relative to a business-as-usual growth rate of 2.4 percent. (Again, this “business as usual” estimate assumes a fictional world in which climate change does not occur.)

An earlier CBO analysis [PDF] of the House clean energy bill found it would cost the average American household about as much as a postage stamp per day. Other analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy found similar results.

This is the fourth study to confirm the same conclusion (other ones: EPA [PDF], CBO [PDF], EIA, ) – America can afford to pass legislation that will make us more energy independent and will help fight climate change.

In fact, we can’t afford not to.

Posted in Economics / Comments are closed