Climate 411

New Report Provides Comparison of Energy, Oil Savings and Climate Policies

A new report by Resources for the Future, “Toward a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options,” provides a thorough analysis of the various energy, oil savings and climate policies currently under debate. The analysis is especially helpful because it employs an “apples to apples” comparison approach by running differing policies through the same economic model and scoring them on the same two effectiveness metrics:“reduction in barrels of oil consumed and reduction in tons of CO2 emitted.” The model also tallies the projected costs of each policy allowing for a cost-effectiveness analysis.  The report does not allow for political calculations but does provide a good basis for policy comparisons.

Also posted in Economics / Comments are closed

June 24th, 2010 – The voices of a new clean energy future

The Huffington Post“Why the Senate needs to keep the Change in Climate change”

By David Yarnold, Executive Director of EDF

“The oil spill has served as a stark reminder of the costs of our national addiction to fossil fuels. The polluted waters and crude-covered pelicans remind us of the ever- more-dangerous methods we must undertake to drill for oil.”

“We have seen too many well-meaning, and even well-timed, efforts at energy reform over the years. Half-solutions are not solutions. We need to put a price on carbon.”

Treasure Coast Palm “A Few Better Recipients of Rep. Barton’s Apologies”

By Rachael Carson-Zerbe, Vero Beach

“Big oil killed the electric car. It campaigned against solar and wind power. It has done all it can to make us completely dependent on oil.  The true costs of oil are never factored in: war, damage to our environment or global climate change.”

“Let’s all move forward together for a sane energy policy and leave a planet behind for our children to cherish and care for as Mother Earth deserves.”

Also posted in News / Comments are closed

Climate highlights from the past few days

On E2, Senator Kerry explains his position on climate policy.

“If we are going to get serious, we have to price carbon. There are many different ways of doing that. I am not locked in to one single way of doing it.”

Green Inc. highlights a new study proving once again that

“the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.”

On Treehugger, climate change and clean energy are listed as priorities on the G20 summit agenda.

“We reiterate our commitment to a green recovery and to sustainable global growth, including through investments in clean energy. We reaffirm our resolve to address climate change and to continue to engage constructively in the negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change towards a post-2012 climate change regime with the participation of all major economies.”

Also posted in News / Comments are closed

June 23, 2010 – The voices of a new clean energy future

The Huffington Post “Learning from The Gulf Oil Spill Could Save Our Planet”

By James M. Gentile, President of Research Corporation for Science Advancement

“If nothing else, the oil plumes are silent evidence that some challenges are so big and consequential that we can no longer simply assume that we will somehow muddle through. What’s desperately needed here is the organized ability to think broadly, think radically, and then act – surely and swiftly.”

“Ironically, what we learn from the Gulf oil spill could well save our planet. The question is: Will we learn?”

The Huffington Post – “Disaster in the Gulf: Making Sure it Never Happens Again

By Byron Kennard, Founder of Center for Small Business and the Environment

“Now I imagine that we will probably find and fix whatever technical malfunction caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion. But this is no way to make sure it never happens again. To do this, we must change course.”

“The report outlines a time-line for this transition and shows how costs will be offset with real economic gains. ‘We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs,’ Google declares. ‘We can cut energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change.’”

Also posted in News / Comments are closed

Gushing oil in the Gulf Coast meets gushing oil money in California

This was originally posted on the California Dream 2.0 blog by Wade Crowfoot.

Boy oh boy, what a mess in the Gulf of Mexico, brought to us by BP. Millions of gallons of crude oil continuing to gush, along with mumbled excuses and transatlantic trips to yacht races.  Unbelievable.

Less known is that yesterday, California was delivered its own troubling environmental mess, compliments of two other oil companies, Valero and Tesoro.

Late yesterday, California’s Secretary of State officially certified a proposition for November’s ballot bought and paid for by these out-of-state polluters. The Dirty Energy ballot proposition—as it deserves to be called—would repeal California’s clean air legislation, AB 32, until the state’s unemployment rate falls to levels we’ve only see three times in 35 years.

According to the Secretary of State, more than $3 million has been spent to qualify it, 80 percent of that coming from special interests outside of California and 78 percent of which is oil money. Valero’s share: $1,050,000. Tesoro’s: $525,000.

You’d think these companies would be cleaning up their own environmental messes instead of looking to create new ones; Valero and Tesoro were recently named the nation’s #12 and #32 polluters in the “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report.

What does $3 million buy in a California campaign? For starters, signatures that place this attack to our clean air and clean energy standards on the November ballot. Their campaign paid operatives to collect the 400,000-plus signatures needed to qualify it. They’ve also set up lobbying fronts under innocuous names that are lies – the “California Jobs Initiative,” the “AB 32 Implementation Group” – and paid for distorted “academic research” that claims that anti-pollution AB 32 will kill jobs. They then trumpet the fake findings in the media. Their dirty politics are on par with their dirty energy.

It’s particularly ironic that Valero and Tesoro are pouring millions into this attack while the Gulf continues to suffer. Oh to be a fly on the wall when Valero chief Bill Kleese and team decided not to spend billion-dollar profits on helping clean up the Gulf, but instead pour money into rolling back environmental laws in California.

If the Gulf catastrophe has any silver lining, it’s a wake up call about the energy we need to power America. You don’t have to be a bleeding heart environmentalist to be troubled by these facts:

  • Every day, we send $1 billion of Americans’ hard earned money to other countries to buy oil, a huge chunk of which goes to hostile, anti-American governments and leaders.
  • Five-dollars-a-gallon gas is not only a possibility (remember how high prices were when Bush was in office?), it’s an inevitability based on growing demand and finite oil supplies.
  • Our future economic success relies on access to energy. It’s literally what powers growth.  Without secure domestic, clean energy, we’re hostage to the whims of others’ dirty energy supplies. Do we want to stay dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, now, and leave that future to our children?

Of course, the specter of another major catastrophe in our own backyard lurks in the wings. If someone would have asked me whether an deep sea well could spew millions of gallons of oil and couldn’t be sealed for months, I would have said “malarkey.” A oil tanker running into the Bay Bridge? “Fantasy.”  But both became reality. What accident will happen next? And where? Every week, several huge oil tankers filled with crude oil gingerly navigate through the San Francisco bay. Amidst the Gulf Coast disaster, this is cause for concern.

On its merits, the Dirty Energy Proposition wouldn’t stand a chance in the state that’s been leading America’s environmental progress for 50 years. That’s why the Texas oil companies aren’t going to convince us with merits. They’re going to overwhelm with naked appeals to economic fear delivered by all the crooked, misleading TV and online advertising their money can buy.

For two months now, every day, we’ve seen images of the gushing oil well that is fouling our fragile wetlands and ecosystem, as oil washes ashore, covers and kills birds, turtles, whales and fish and threatens livelihoods. It will be interesting to see how Californians react to a local environmental mess in the making that’s been bought and paid for by out-of-state oil companies that are already polluting our Golden State.

Also posted in News, Policy / Comments are closed

Lesson from The Climate War: the missing ingredient is presidential leadership

This was originally posted on the California Dream 2.0 blog by Jennifer Witherspoon.

An interview with editor and author Eric Pooley

Tonight, Eric Pooley, deputy editor at Bloomberg Businessweek, will join the Environmental Defense Fund at our San Francisco office to celebrate the release of his new book, The Climate War – True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth.

California Dream 2.0 took the opportunity to interview Mr. Pooley about the book, which features EDF President Fred Krupp and Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and chronicles their efforts — along with other leaders of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection, and many others, to pass national climate and energy legislation.

Q: When did you first get the idea for the book?

A: In the early spring of 2007, I wrote a cover story for Time magazine about Al Gore. Speculation was that he might be considering another run for president, following the major successes of An Inconvenient Truth. As I reported it I saw that the debate was finally changing from climate science to climate politics — from whether climate change was happening to what we were going to do about it. And I got interested in what was causing America to drag its heels on enacting comprehensive climate and energy reform. 

Q: What did you discover?

A: I didn’t come into this as an environmental journalist. I came to this as a political correspondent and the editor of a business magazine, Fortune. So I began to do a lot of research and what I discovered was that solutions existed and were being refined and improved. These policies had their roots in the 1980s, and that is where I got acquainted with EDF, which as you know has advocated for these market-based ideas since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which imposed a mandatory declining cap on sulfur dioxide pollution from power plants. So I decided to write a book about the battle over climate action — the people at EDF and elsewhere who were trying to get these ideas signed into law — and people on the other side who were trying to keep it from happening.

It is no easy feat to transform the entire energy & industrial complex of the United States. I think that the market-based ideas behind the declining cap on carbon and the emissions trading program that was in the original Lieberman-Warner bill and was approved by the Waxman-Markey bill in the U.S. House is the best chance we have right now to address climate change. How that bill got passed a year ago is sign of what is right with the U.S. political system; it shows politics doing what politics are supposed to do, addressing economic imbalances and cushioning consumers and carbon-intensive industries from rising costs. 

Q: In light of the Gulf oil spill do you think the U.S. Senate will pass a climate bill this summer?

A: When I started the book three years ago, I had hoped that the narrative would start with the U.N. climate conference in Bali and end in Copenhagen. But as President Bill Clinton said, what the global warming story “doesn’t have is an ending; that part is still up to us.” I hope the Senate will act this summer. This is a big week right now, as President Obama meets with senators from both sides of the aisle to discuss what should be in a climate and energy bill.

I think the American people will get behind the idea of a carbon cap, but they need to understand it first. It can’t be forced upon them. That’s why we need President Obama to use the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill as a great teaching moment – now is the time for America to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Obama has the ability to explain how a cap on carbon will unleash America’s clean energy market, but his recent Oval Office speech was a disappointment, missing a major opportunity to explain the need for the carbon cap to the American people.

China is already ahead of America, spending nearly 9 billion dollars a month on clean energy. America is a decentralized, debtor nation. We can’t rely on the government to make those kinds of investments and create industries by decree. We need a market to do it. The government can pass smart policies, like the cap on carbon, to spur America’s ingenuity and draw private capital off the sidelines. America needs a market to compete with China and other nations and that’s what the Senate could provide this summer. But the senate won’t do it unless Obama makes the case forcefully and in a sustained way. The lesson of The Climate War is that presidential leadership is the necessary, and until now missing, ingredient.

Q: I’m sure you’ve heard about California’s cap on carbon, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act and new efforts by out-of-state oil companies to roll back that law?

A: I cover AB 32 briefly in The Climate War. It was a real victory for California to pass the nation’s first climate cap. It is a shame that some would try to delay our future until some perfect moment. We need to move into the future with confidence. Business people understand that and that’s why so many of them support AB 32. We need to treat voters like grown ups, however, and not try to sweep the costs of transitioning to clean energy under the rug. There are short-term costs, but the benefits are greater down the line. After writing the book, I still don’t know if our political system will rise to the challenge. I just know that the time is now and that the president needs to lead.

Also posted in News / Comments are closed