Climate 411

The Real Story: Home Energy Provisions in the Climate Bill

By Tom Olson / Published: July 21, 2009

The Web and the Twitterverse are awash with nonsense about the clean energy bill that passed the House in late June.

The bill’s opponents are trying to scare homeowners by making them believe an energy audit or retrofit is required before they could sell their homes.  That’s nuts — the bill does nothing of the kind.  Here’s what it actually does:

  • For existing homes, the bill creates incentives to encourage people to do retrofits of their homes. It doesn’t require anything.
  • For new homes, the bill establishes federal guidelines for energy-efficiency labeling. It’s up to local governments whether they want to have new homes in their area labeled or not.

See more details in our fact sheet on home energy in the climate bill.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

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

By Tony Kreindler / Published: July 15, 2009

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].

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

Four Reasons to Use Cap and Trade to Fight Global Warming

By Nat Keohane / Published: July 15, 2009

Michael Oppenheimer and I have a post up on Huffington Post that explains why cap and trade is more effective than a tax at slowing and eventually halting global warming.

Here are just the highlights:

  1. Environmental certainty. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize: avoiding dangerous climate change. A legally binding cap is the only way to assure that this objective will actually be attained.
  2. International opportunity. The atmosphere is indifferent to where carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is emitted. The ultimate goal, once countries like China and Brazil have adequate systems for monitoring their emissions, is a global carbon market — benefiting both the developing countries and the industrialized countries.
  3. The market, not the government, sets the price. Cap and trade is a smart division of labor: Congress sets the cap, and the market sets the price on carbon needed to achieve it.
  4. Political viability. In our view, cap and trade is the best policy on the merits. But it is also the politically viable path. A recent survey shows that of all regulatory approaches, the public likes taxes least.

Each of these reasons are explained in more detail on Huffington Post. Take a look and add to the comments!

Also posted in Economics / Read 1 Response

Rush Limbaugh Attacks – Help Us Fight Back

By Sam Parry / Published: June 29, 2009

Rush Limbaugh and the Dittoheads are urging their supporters to flood Capitol Hill with calls attacking those who voted yes on the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act. We need your help to fight back.

First, find out if your Rep voted yes on the bill: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-waxman-markey-bill-vote-count/

Then, call the Capitol Hill switchboard — (202) 224-3121. Ask to be patched through to your Rep.

Finally, tell the office staff that you strongly support the landmark climate bill and applaud the Rep. for voting to pass it.

This was a tough vote for a lot of members of Congress. But, thanks to the courage of 219 of them, we now have a chance to move America forward and create the clean energy economy we’ll need to compete in the 21st century. This bill will break our addiction to foreign oil, put millions of Americans to work, and, along with cuts from other countries, will help avert the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Please call your Rep now to applaud his/her vote on the landmark climate bill.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Read 7 Responses

Truth Squad: Calling Out Bogus Claims One By One

By Sharyn Stein / Published: June 26, 2009

As the House debate proceeds, members of Congress are making some startling and downright incorrect claims on the floor. Our Truth Squad blog is lobbing back the truth. Visit for gems of responses, including:

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Authors: / Comments are closed

Fact Checking: They Still Have It Wrong

By Sharyn Stein / Published: June 26, 2009

With the House set to vote today on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the misinformation from the bill’s opponents is flying fast. Our staff economists have been working furiously to circulate the facts:

    Grade F: Heritage Foundation

  • Grade: F. Dr. Nat Keohane pulled out his professor pen again to mark up a Heritage Foundation fact sheet.
  • It only takes a dime a day. Opponents of action have been trying to scare voters with inflated and misleading accounts of how this bill will affect consumers’ daily expenses. However, the two most independent and credible analyses project much lower costs.
  • Draconian assumptions. One tactic opponents use to get such inflated cost estimates is to make assumptions that ignore policy provisions and impose artificial constraints. This paper breaks it down.

When floor debate starts later today, the policy and economics specialists here at EDF will be hard at work correcting misstatements. Stay tuned here to see the facts.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 2 Responses