Climate 411

Enemies of Climate Action Turn Up the Heat

By Sam Parry / Published: July 22, 2009

The radical right is organizing an all-out, take-no-prisoners campaign to block President Obama’s efforts to reform America’s energy policies and stop global warming. Led by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, right wing ideologues are lining up with big polluters to defeat climate action this year.

Joe Romm talks about their “passionate intensity” in a blog post today. His key points:

[T]he entire conservative messaging apparatus is full-throated in its opposition to this bill — and they have well-heeled funders, aka the dirty-energy bunch. […]

But we should be equaling, if not beating, calls to key senators right now. […]

Reason enough for passage of a bill with emissions targets like Waxman-Markey (preferably stronger) is to give the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen (and beyond) a fighting chance — and not to strangle a global deal in the crib as the deniers and polluters hope to do with their immoral and ultimately self-destructive filibuster.

And to prove his point, this just in from Twitter: The opposition is being extremely vocal towards Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska:

kate_sheppard RT @Populista: Ben Nelson says letters in Nebraska are running 99-1 against #ACES. Says people at parades are shouting “No cap and trade”

You can help fight back by calling your Senators today.

And if Sen. Nelson is your Senator, here are various ways to let him know you support climate action.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 5 Responses

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.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

How Cap and Trade Was Born

By Tony Kreindler / Published: July 21, 2009

The latest Smithsonian magazine has an in-depth piece that tells the story of “How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade.”

The story is powerful — it starts with a hike,  leads to fury within the Bush White House and ends with results:

Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard. (Better relations with Canada? Priceless.)

…

Cap-and-trade — a term that first appeared in print that year — quickly went “from being a pariah among policy makers,” as an MIT analysis put it, “to being a star — everybody’s favorite way to deal with pollution problems.”

Posted in What Others are Saying / Comments are closed

Link Round-Up: How Many Ways Can Sarah Palin Get It Wrong?

By Sharyn Stein / Published: July 17, 2009

You have to give Sarah Palin credit for getting attention — her op-ed in the Washington Post on climate change legislation triggered an avalanche of blog posts and opinion columns. Here’s a round-up:

The facts, please!

Why is she doing this?

Really, everyone is piling on!

It wasn’t just the usual environmental crowd who were taken aback by Palin’s claims. People taking issue with her stance popped up in unexpected places:

Posted in What Others are Saying / 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].

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!

Posted in Economics, Policy / Read 1 Response