Climate 411

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote an op-ed Monday in the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, complaining that global warming action will cost too much.

And, he might have a point — if his facts were, well, factual.

Instead, his sensationalistic claims seem to justify his opposition to global warming action rather than engage in a clear-headed debate.

In this Truth Squad entry, we’ll examine his op-ed point by point:

That’s Not What MIT’s Report Says

Claim:

“According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology model of a 100 percent auction cap-and-tax, the American people will be taxed $366 billion in 2015 — four times as much as the president’s estimate of $80.3 billion for that year… A family of four could expect to pay as much as $4,560 in additional costs in 2015.”

Truth:

MIT has publicly berated the NRCC’s misrepresentation of its report, yet the unwarranted claims using these incorrect estimates keep resurfacing.  According to MIT, the correct estimate of the cost for an average household in 2015 is about $65 per family.

It’s 10 cents a Day

Claim:

“Increased energy costs would near $1 trillion in 2030. Increases in electricity costs could be more than 100 percent.”

Truth:

A cap on carbon pollution will help break America’s addiction to oil and create jobs, while protecting the family budget.

Best of all, it’s affordable. For example, based on Department of Energy estimates, it will only cost the average American household about ten cents a day more on their utility bills — this includes electricity AND heating. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning.

A Cap Will Unleash American Innovation

Claim:

“There is no help for businesses that may move across our borders or permanently shut down operations. Not welcome news, especially with one-third of our jobs dependent on exports. Quite simply, cap-and-trade caps our growth and trades our jobs.”

Truth:

Maintaining the competitive edge of the U.S. is a critical issue that has not been lost on the policy-makers on Capitol Hill— all cap proposals include provisions to avoid losing out to overseas industry.

The real question is which countries and companies will be exporting new clean energy technologies — likely the biggest new business of the 21st century. A cap will unleash the investment necessary for America to get ahead in this race.

Our steel plants need orders, our factories need new customers, and our exporters need high value products to sell to Asia and Europe.

A cap will drive enormous clean energy investments throughout the supply chain– generating demand for ball bearings and steel for wind turbines, glass and plastics for solar cells, and hundreds of new technologies.

President Obama recognized this when he explained that the effort to create millions of jobs and restore American leadership will ‘start with a federal cap and trade system.’

Cap and Trade is a Proven Environmental Policy

Claim:

“Cap-and-tax can only hurt the economy while providing a questionable environmental benefit.”

Truth:

When a similar cap-and-trade policy was proposed for reducing acid rain pollution during the 1990 Clean Air Act battle, our opponents made this very same argument over and over. It’ll cost too much. It won’t work.

What happened? Well, the cap on sulfur dioxide pollution worked so well that The Economist crowned it “probably the greatest green success story of the past decade.” (July 6, 2002).

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they’re wrong now.

The U.S. Must Lead

Claim:

“The U.S. cannot go it alone in the effort to cut greenhouse gases. Absent a global agreement that includes the heavy-emitting developing countries, cap-and-tax will only send energy costs up while sending employment numbers down.”

Truth:

The Congressman will be happy to know that 183 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, which calls for emission reductions from developed countries and other commitments from lesser developed countries. In fact, the United States is one of only 14 countries not to ratify the Kyoto agreement, joining the likes of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Brunei. We’ve been going it nearly alone alright — alone in inaction.

Rep. Upton actually makes the case for domestic global warming action this year. The world will meet again in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December to negotiate the next international agreement for global climate action. If we fail to lead on this issue by acting domestically, we will have a weaker negotiating position from which to shape the international debate to our liking.

Five Principles of Successful Global Warming Action

Claim:

“Any climate change legislation must adhere to five basic principles: 1) provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; 2) advance technology and provide the opportunity for export; 3) protect American jobs; 4) strengthen U.S. energy security; and 5) require global participation.”

Truth:

1) Check; 2) Check; 3) Check; 4) Check; 5) Check. Hard to argue with these goals — in fact, they are some of the same goals that will be achieved when we pass a comprehensive cap on America’s global warming pollution as proposed under the draft Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act.

83% reduction of America’s global warming emissions by 2050 (as called for in the bill) is about as tangible an environmental benefit as you can get — it is entirely consistent with what most scientists say is necessary to avoid the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Want more green energy technologies? A cap will unleash our clean energy future by creating powerful market incentives to invent and deploy new green energy innovation.

Concerned about jobs? As we’ve shown in our Less Carbon More Jobs report, a cap on carbon will put Americans back to work.

What about our reliance on foreign oil? A cap will begin to free us from our dependence on imported oil.

And, when it comes to global participation, bold leadership from the United States will encourage China, India and other emerging economies to the table — if we don’t show leadership, how can we possibly expect other countries to act?

A few weeks ago, we published a post challenging the claims of a draft print newspaper ad the Cato Institute was then shopping around looking for scientist signers.

On March 30, The Washington Post ran that full page ad, which appeared with the names of 115 signers whom Cato claimed were scientists.

Perhaps the better name for them would be “sign”-tists.

That’s because, based on our research, few, if any, of the signers have published peer-reviewed papers on climate science.

Indeed, only a handful of them have a background of any kind in climate-related sciences. And 15 don’t appear to have any advanced degrees in any academic field at all.

We wrote The Washington Post the following letter to the editor, which they refused to run. We share it here for the benefit of our readers:

April 3, 2009

To the Editor:

On Monday, March 30, the Post published a full-page advertisement by the Cato Institute that challenges President Obama’s assertion that, with regard to global climate change, “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” The advertisement was signed by 115 scientists. In the upside-down world of global warming denial, this represents yet another effort to mislead the Post’s readers. Your readers should know that not every “scientist” on Cato’s list has a Ph.D., very few have a Ph.D. in climate science, and fewer still are publishing research on climate science in peer-reviewed journals. A typical signer is the retired Swedish geology professor whose expertise is paleoseismicity, the study of historical earthquake activity. He also claims an expertise in dowsing. Some signers don’t believe the HIV virus causes AIDS. A Google search for one reveals that he is “New Orleans’ #1 rated weather personality.” Another signer is a devotee of the notorious scientific quack Wilhelm Reich, who invented the “orgone energy accumulator,” a device that purported to gather energy from the atmosphere to cure common colds, cancer, and impotence. The signer’s web site claims that research at his “Orgone Biophysical Research Lab” has confirmed “many of Reich’s original findings on the orgone accumulator.”

Since many of the advertisement’s signers are from foreign countries, Cato presumably scoured the globe to find scientists who challenge the scientific consensus on global warming.

David Yarnold
Executive Director
Environmental Defense Fund

In an op-ed for the Miami Herald, EDF’s executive director, David Yarnold, tells this story:

A small town in Ohio has such a high unemployment rate that almost 700 people lined up to apply for one job opening,  for a school janitor. Just down the road is a renewable energy company that’s poised to grow and add jobs as soon as we put a cap on carbon pollution.

As David put it:

You’ll hear opponents of climate change legislation talk about the “burden” that capping carbon will place on our economy. However, they won’t talk about the burden that 10-percent-plus unemployment puts on our communities, or the burden that standing on line with 700 other job applicants puts on individuals. Clinging to the status quo won’t get us out of this recession.

A new energy economy is our best chance for a better future, and we can’t afford not to take this opportunity.

See the whole column.

Why does John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, Pa., want a cap on carbon? One word: Jobs.

Over the last week, in two separate posts, the Huffington Post has characterized EDF as, on the one hand, a sellout to the coal industry, while on the other, too aggressive in our effort to pass a hard limit on global warming.

We find these attacks confusing and wish to use this Truth Squad post to set the record straight.

First, we’ll start with the claim that we are selling out to coal.

Claim 1:

“The draft we see before us very much reflects the vision of the environmental groups leading the so-called U.S. Climate Action Partnership, including Environmental Defense and NRDC. And with these leading green groups setting the agenda, here’s what’s so telling: with billions of dollars sitting on the table, these well-known green groups leading the climate charge simply left it there — or worse yet, looked the other way while the coal industry grabbed their pile of cash.

“Why didn’t these greens insist that the revenues raised from climate regulations are actually invested in technologies that reduce global warming pollution? Why didn’t they fight to make sure that money directly supports the construction of wind turbines in the American Heartland, makes affordable solar panels a reality for every homeowner, and secures our energy independence by driving plug-in hybrid cars off assembly lines in Michigan and Kentucky? With all the rhetoric about green jobs flying around, why did no one else demand that Markey and Waxman reinvest carbon revenues to accelerate the emergence of the clean energy economy, acting as a true engine of job creation?”

— Jesse Jenkins, Huffington Post, April 2, 2009

Truth:

We think Jesse Jenkins should read the Waxman-Markey bill more carefully before commenting on it.

First of all, the draft bill doesn’t address how the revenue from a cap would be spent. It leaves that issue to be negotiated in Subcommittee and Committee markup. So, Jenkins is just factually wrong on that point.

What the bill does include is a series of provisions to transition America to a clean, low-carbon energy economy, including those that address many of the suggestions Jenkins offers.

You want cleaner cars? Well, the Waxman-Markey bill would authorize financial support for large-scale investments in electric cars and establish a low-carbon transportation fuel standard.

You want more wind and solar? Well, a carbon cap would significantly drive investments in these technologies. And, in addition to that, the Waxman-Markey bill would establish a renewable energy standard to require 25% of our electricity be generated from wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources by 2025.

You want a smarter electricity transmission grid? Well, the Waxman-Markey bill would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to modernize the electricity grid and provide for new transmission lines to carry renewable energy.

And of course, the Waxman-Markey bill would cap and reduce America’s global warming pollution by 83% of 2005 emissions by 2050, which will unleash our clean energy future.

Our top legislative priority is to pass a national, economy-wide cap on global warming pollution. This is the most effective and efficient way to dramatically reduce America’s global warming emissions.

Without a cap, we will not guarantee the emissions reductions needed to avoid the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming. With a cap, we will send a revolutionary market signal that will unleash our clean energy future.

And, to directly answer the main charge Jenkins makes, that we are selling out to coal, our position has been clear and we think reasonable. We believe in a steady transition to 100% auction and support proposals to protect consumers and mitigate the impacts of higher energy costs, which may be more acute in states that rely on energy from coal and other fossil fuels.

Ultimately, all of these issues will be debated and decided by our political leaders who will make compromises to win the votes necessary to pass a global warming bill.

That said, we are doing everything we can to move the strongest possible bill through the House and Senate this year. The science demands quick and bold action and our priority focus must remain the economy-wide cap that guarantees pollution reductions.

If Jenkins really supports the clean energy investments he claims in his post, we urge him to read the Waxman-Markey bill. We think he’ll find a lot to like.

Claim 2:

“The Democratic Congress made a critical mistake in following the direction of leading green groups like Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. By tossing out Obama’s energy investment plan and focusing on carbon pricing and regulation, Democrats allowed Republicans to quickly and easily frame the entire debate around increased energy prices and economic costs. That’s a fight Republicans take up with relish — and one they will surely win.”

— Teryn Norris, Huffington Post, April 8, 2009

Truth:

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

First of all, no one is suggesting “tossing out Obama’s energy investment plan.” In fact, we have celebrated the depth and breadth of the Administration’s commitment to our clean energy future, one that includes a commitment to capping America’s global warming pollution.

But, we think Norris is missing the larger point.

Putting aside the obvious flaw in his political argument – does anyone believe the opposition wouldn’t make a stink out of “wasteful government spending” on renewable energy programs – Norris doesn’t grasp the ecological imperative to get serious about global warming action.

Transitioning America’s economy away from carbon-based fuels will require trillions of dollars in investments. There is no way the federal government alone can possibly spend enough on renewable energy programs to solve the problem.

That is precisely why a cap on global warming pollution is urgently needed. A cap sends a market signal that the days of spewing out millions of tons of carbon pollution into the earth’s atmosphere by burning cheap, carbon-based fuels are over.

A cap will unleash our green energy economy by shifting America’s entire energy market toward the clean, renewable, carbon-constrained technologies we need to solve the climate crisis.

It will require political courage to take this on. We fully acknowledge and do our best to respond to the misleading political charges from climate action opponents.

But, make no mistake – the suggestion that subsidies alone can solve our climate crisis is not a serious point.