Climate 411

EDF to the Senate: Agricultural Offsets Are Key to Climate Policy

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday, and gave an impassioned plea to include a strong, credible agricultural offsets program in Senate climate legislation:

Environmental Defense Fund believes that an effective climate solution must include US agricultural offsets. American farmers, foresters, and landowners can provide creditable emissions reductions while earning a new income stream, and we must give them that opportunity.

Fred outlined ways to create credible offsets program that would benefit the entire country – including farmers and taxpayers. He stressed that any program must be science-based and must provide real, measurable, verifiable benefits to the atmosphere.

The highlight of the hearing was a spirited exchange between Fred and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) about gas prices. (In the video of the hearing released by the committee, advance to 89:40 to see the back-and-forth.)

Of course, Fred also heaped praise on the House for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Bill, even as he told Senators they could strengthen that critical legislation even more by improving the offsets provisions.

Here’s a link to Fred’s full written testimony [PDF].

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

President Calls on House to Pass Climate Bill

At this afternoon’s press conference, the president spoke about the climate change legislation that the House is set to address on Friday. Here’s what he said:

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve. It’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation and that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.

That’s about all that needs to be said — it’s clear what our members of Congress need to do now.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

Link: TNR on How Climate Bill Allocates Allowances

Brad Plumer over at TNR has a good post about how allowances are allocated in the climate bill in front of the House. He goes into detail about how savings will be passed through to consumers, including some insight from our own Nat Keohane.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, What Others are Saying / Read 1 Response

New Momentum to Pass a Carbon Cap in 2009

The House Energy and Commerce Committee just approved landmark climate change legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

EDF president Fred Krupp said it this way: “The committee today put climate legislation on the path to the President’s desk.”

This vote is much more than a procedural milestone. To pass this bill, the committee had to bridge regional differences among its diverse membership. It succeeded in producing a strong bill that can win broad support in the House and serve as a template for quick Senate action.

The bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, draws on key provisions of a legislative blueprint negotiated by the 25 leading companies from every sector of the U.S. economy and the five non-profit groups in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Committee action on the bill also drew support from labor unions like the United Auto Workers and the Steelworkers, faith groups, and state and local officials.

The timing couldn’t be better.  Fred Krupp says, “As the President’s economic advisors said this week, a cap on global warming pollution is essential to our economic recovery and our long-term financial health.”

We look forward to action by the full House this summer.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Climate Legislation Link Round-Up

With climate legislation moving to a vote this week in Chairman Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce Committee, it’s encouraging to see thoughtful and honest arguments and posts covering the various angles of this historic step forward. 

Paul Krugman’s The Perfect, the Good, the Planet posits that while imperfect, Waxman-Markey is our best chance at addressing climate change.  Joe Romm sets the record straight on Europe’s carbon trading efforts in his recent post, and Daniel Weiss provides a succinct update on where the legislation currently stands.

Did we leave anything out?  If so, post your links in the comments!

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Read 2 Responses

Climate and the $3,100 Lie Detector

How can you tell when a politician in Washington isn’t telling the truth? When they claim that the cost of capping carbon emissions and reducing foreign oil dependence will cost American families “$3,100.”

It’s become Talking Point Number One for opponents of action on climate change. Problem is, it’s entirely made up — so don’t get fooled. Ask where that number comes from.

The claim that carbon cap legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey will cost families “$3,100” was first made in a March press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC said its number was based an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation.

Here’s what John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, told Politifact about the NRCC’s claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

In two recent letters to House Republican Leader John Boehner, MIT’s Reilly asked that the NRCC stop using the “misleading” figure, noting that MIT’s estimates are less than one thirtieth of what the NRCC is claiming. “A correct estimate of that cost … for the average household just in 2015 is about $80 per family, or $65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms discounted at an annual 4% rate,” he said.

Reilly also pointed out that the MIT study is an “old analysis that is not well calibrated to either current legislative proposals or US economic conditions.” That’s important because the legislation now under debate in the House is expected to take further steps to ease cost impacts on consumers.

So why do Rep. Mike Pence and other opponents of cap and trade keep saying it will cost thousands? Either they are ignoring every credible analysis, or they’re very bad at math.

If they cite a study claiming astronomical costs, be sure to ask three key questions:

  1. Does the author of the study agree with the claims about their analysis?
  2. Does the analysis actually look at the current legislation under debate?
  3. What do the most recent, credible, and unbiased analyses say?

According to a new EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), an ambitious cap on carbon pollution can be met for as little as $98 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person.

In the early years the costs are even lower: Before 2012 it is zero — because the bill won’t have taken effect. By 2015, the costs “skyrocket” to 2 cents per person. Anyone who claims that now is the wrong time to cap carbon is engaging in scare tactics.

EPA’s analysis sets the gold standard by using two of the most credible, transparent, and peer-reviewed economic models available. It’s not a crystal ball, but it shows clearly that household costs will be modest under a well-designed cap and trade bill.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 4 Responses