Climate 411

Keeping on the Heat at Hearing after Hearing

By Sharyn Stein / Published: August 5, 2009

The dog days of summer are making everything seem slow and sleepy — except in Congress, where efforts to finish work on clean energy legislation are in high gear. (You might have guessed this from our super-charged pace of blog posting today!)

In addition to everything else going on, EDF experts are busy testifying at hearings on the Hill:

Last week, Jennifer Havercamp testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about intellectual property rules and how they’ll affect the development of new technologies to fight climate change.
(See her written testimony [PDF].)
Tuesday, Nat Keohane testified before the Senate Finance Committee about how clean energy legislation will strengthen the economy.
(See his written testimony [PDF].)
And tomorrow, Fred Krupp is testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The hearing is on “Climate Change and Ensuring that America Leads the Clean Energy Transformation.” Fred is summing up all the evidence that we can meet 2020 emissions targets – at low cost – while creating jobs. (Update: Here’s a link to the written testimony.)

Between all this testimony, reviewing new analyses and studies, and launching a new ad campaign, we are keeping the heat on Congress this summer!

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

EIA Analysis: Climate Bill Will Cut America’s Oil Addiction for About a Dime a Day

By Sharyn Stein / Published: August 5, 2009

A just-released analysis from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the cap on carbon pollution in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) can be achieved for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person.

One of the reasons it’s so affordable is that increases in consumers’ electricity and natural gas bills are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies.

Nat Keohane, EDF’s director of economic policy and analysis, says this:

This analysis confirms what every other credible study has found, and it – once again – refutes the widely reported scare tactics about the cost of the cap and trade bill. Opponents of action will always try to cherry-pick the numbers and use models with biased assumptions. The EPA, EIA and CBO are the non-biased standard for economic analysis.
For a dime a day we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.

The analysis also shows that the climate bill passed by the House 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, under the provisions of the bill. That’s a cut of more than 12 percent of predicted imports for the same year without the bill.

Other key points about the EIA analysis:

It considers only the costs of reducing global warming pollution, and does not take into account the many potential benefits.
It has similar findings to two other impartial and substantive studies done recently, from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office.
A leaked draft of the EIA report, which was covered in some early media stories, contained an error. The average yearly change in consumption per household for the years 2012-2030 is $83 — NOT $142. The correct figure is in the final version.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 5 Responses

Duke Study: Who Will The Climate Bill Regulate?

By Sharyn Stein / Published: August 5, 2009

One of the most common questions about the American Clean Energy and Security Act is, “Who will it cover?” The bill will apply to firms that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

Supporters have always said that meant the bill would only regulate big polluters. Opponents claimed that small businesses, schools, churches – even individuals – could be subject to new government rules.

Now, a new study from Duke University gives us the answer.

Turns out that the 25,000-ton threshhold includes only 1.3 percent of all U.S. manufacturing facilities — a fraction of America’s more than 350,000 sites. However, those few companies are responsible for 82.5 percent of the manufacturing sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to Duke’s David Cooley:

Large-scale polluters are responsible for a supermajority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, so we can get enormous environmental benefits while regulating a small percentage of firms.

The bill will also apply to about half of the country’s electric power plants, but almost no farms or commercial buildings.

Who’s not on the list? No schools. No churches. No individuals. If you don’t own your own smokestack, you can pretty much count on being exempt.

EDF is proud to have provided funding for the study, which you can download from the Duke site [PDF].

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

Coal Industry Group Linked to Forged Letters

By Keith Gaby / Published: August 4, 2009

We told you the opposition was turning up the heat on the climate bill, but their efforts have reached a new low.

It turns out that the lobbying firm that sent forged letters to House Democrats was working for a group that represents coal and electricity companies. The letters were made to look like they came from local advocacy groups, but they were signed by people who had nothing to do with the local groups.

And what looked like one case now involves a dozen fraudulent letters sent to at least three members of Congress. Two of those members ended up opposing the clean energy legislation.

Get more details in the Greenwire story on the New York Times Web site, and see one of the forged letters [PDF] on the Greenwire site.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

TV Ads: Members of Congress Who Caved in to Special Interests

By Sharyn Stein / Published: August 3, 2009

Last week, Environmental Defense Action Fund launched a hard-hitting new campaign targeting members of Congress who opposed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The ads call them out for their failure to help reduce America’s addiction to imported oil.

Steve Cochran, director of EDAF’s national climate campaign, said this:

This is a sustained campaign to educate the public. The public should know when their elected representatives vote against their interests.
Opponents of this bill have based their campaign on phony numbers and scare tactics. We’re going to beat them with the facts. As this bill moves to the Senate, we are focusing on letting constituents know who is ready to take action to cut imported oil and who just wants to talk about it.

The ads will run through the end of September, and you can see them online:
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Patrick Tiberi (R-OH)

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 2 Responses

Three Governors: Climate Policy Can Create Jobs

By Sharyn Stein / Published: July 28, 2009

Last week, the governors of three states from vastly different parts of the country — New Jersey, Colorado, and Washington — traveled to Washington, D.C., to show their support for the climate bill.

They appeared before the Senate to report that “efforts to curb global warming and spur the development of cleaner sources of energy have created jobs and new businesses in their states, a trend that could expand nationwide if Congress passes federal legislation.”

The governors are the newest addition to the climate bill fan club. Small business owners, electric company CEOs, environmentalists and a majority of the House of Representatives already back climate legislation.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr., talked about the revitalization of an old steel town in his state. He explained the lesson “good energy policy and climate policy can energize the economy and help create good-paying private sector jobs.”