Climate 411

More Manufactured Numbers from the National Association of Manufacturers

The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation today continued their campaign of public deception against the American Clean Energy and Security Act with the release of an analysis that purports to show manufacturing declines and job losses if the bill passes.

Problem is, NAM’s numbers are about as trustworthy as the forged letters sent by their allies to members of Congress, which faked opposition to the ACES bill from local community groups. They are no more real that the Birthers’ imaginary Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama, which names a laundry detergent as the registrar. (Really.)

As you know, NAM has a long history of opposing virtually every major environmental law, often using similar bad arguments with flawed data. NAM/ACCF’s study from last year was seriously flawed – it claimed to look at that year’s 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.

In short, they applied make-believe assumptions to a make-believe bill, and they are doing it again:

  • NAM/ACCF’s conclusions assume that ACES will spur 10 to 25 GW in new nuclear power. Compare that to the Energy Information Administration’s base scenario, which predicts 10 GW without the bill – and as much as 95 GW with the bill.
  • NAM/ACCF assumes that 95 percent of cost-saving offsets will come from domestic projects and five percent from overseas. In fact, ACES provides for a 50-50 split between domestic and international offsets, and the latter are expected to be more cost-effective.

These are but two questionable assumptions from the very few that NAM and ACCF disclosed – from a model with a huge array of inputs. No one will ever know exactly how they reached their numbers, because important details about their analysis and underlying assumptions remain in a black box.

We’ll have a more detailed rebuttal to NAM/ACCF’s claims for you later today.

In the meantime, here’s what we already know from independent, transparent analysis:

  • The Energy Information Administration 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.
  • The Congressional Budget Office found [PDF] 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 a $40 in 2020. The study factored in the value of emissions allowances that will be rebated to consumers.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency puts the cost of a carbon cap on 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 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.
Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 1 Response

Stand Up to Big Oil: Attend a Town Hall Meeting

Why should you go to a Congressional town hall meeting and stand up for strong action on clean energy?

Because, according to the Wall Street Journal, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying group for Big Oil, is organizing their troops to pack town hall meetings.

Apparently, they admired the work of the anti-health insurance reform protesters, so they’re spending some of their billions in profits to make congressmen believe Americans don’t want clean energy.  As we wrote earlier, most Americans DO support clean energy. But that won’t matter if our elected officials don’t hear from our side, too.

So please see where your representatives are holding a town hall meeting, and go stand up for clean energy.

If there isn’t a town hall in your area, you can still weigh in. Call your Senator’s office and tell them how you feel.

Whichever way you speak up, the point is the same — Big Oil is trying to manufacture a picture of Americans that just isn’t true. And we don’t have to let them.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

New Poll: Americans Like the Clean Energy Bill

Looks like the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is one of the most popular kids on the Capitol Hill campus.

In spite of months fear-mongering and outright lying by opponents, a new poll says 71 percent of likely voters favor the bill.

The Zogby poll sampled people across the country and found:

  • 71 percent favor the climate bill that was recently passed by the House of Representatives.
  • 67 percent think Congress is either “doing the right amount” or “should be doing more” to address global warming.
  • 51 percent think that “efforts to reduce global warming and promote clean energy” will lead to new job creation,  and
  • another 17 percent think the efforts will not affect American jobs at all — which means less than one-third are worried the bill will cause job losses.
  • Favorable views of the bill were high among all age and income groups; ditto for the belief that environmental efforts will create new American jobs.
  • Even Republicans aren’t as opposed to the bill as their party leaders might want them to be; 45 percent have a favorable view of ACES. (A whopping 89 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Independents like the measure)

Says Zogby analyst Sam Rodgers:

Clearly, voters strongly favor the ideas outlined in the bill. Support for action on clean energy and energy efficiency was strong coming out of the election, and it is still strong today.

The moral of the story: Next time you read one of those opposition pieces about how support for ACES is eroding — don’t believe it. Americans see the potential in clean energy.

See the complete methodological statement on the survey.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

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