Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Courtesy of CCAN.

Al Gore says supports it. Paul Krugman says support it. Two Nobel Prize Winners. Who am I to question them? That is a question received, in more than one space, when it comes to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.

Well, with all due respect to the infallibility of a Nobel Prize Winner (Kissinger (’73), James Watson (’03), etc …), we should be clear that the bill, as drafted, falls far short of what is necessary and, well, quite likely falls short of what is possible.

How can this be? How can a bill driven by two of the most passionate and knowledgeable House members (Committee Chairmen) fall short of the possible?

For one, perhaps it is because of a fundamental failure of those advocating serious action in regards to climate change. In short, as per Vice President Gore’s and many environmental organizations’ praise for the draft bill, there is a clear impression (if not reality) that those advocating for action in face of our challenges (and to seize opportunities) are prepared to take scraps from the table rather than fight for and demand adequate legislative action.

In short, the ‘mainstream’ reaction to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s passage of ACES last week has been: ‘YEAH, Congrats and Thanks to Waxman and Markey, oh, by the way, can we try to strengthen this a bit?’

Well, we need to ask ourselves a serious question: How does one “win”?

Do you win by saying ‘this ain’t what I want but YEAH’ and then watching it watered down even further by attacks from anti-science suffering global warming deniers.

Or, do we get a stronger bill by reminding (STRONGLY) that this bill has tremendous shortfalls and does not even live up to basic principles?

[Read more →]

Let’s be clear: coal is a killer. Despite the fantasies that coal industry advocates and astroturf organizations like to sell about “clean coal“, coal is a killer in the near term (asthma, black lung, etc), mid-term (mercury), and long term (climate change).

While coal has had a powerful role in powering the globe from poverty into modernity, it is well past time to understand that our knowledge of the costs of a 19th-century polluting energy approach has deepened while the realistic and viable alternatives have increased.  Simply put, if we are going to have any hope to avert catastrophe, we have to begin to figure out how to keep coal and its carbon in the ground rather than accelerate its mining and burning (in the US and around the globe, most notably China).

With coal’s quite significant role in contributing to global warming through the emissions of roughly two pounds of CO2 for every kilowatt hour generated, one would expect that any serious climate legislation (in the United States or elsewhere) would be feared by coal-industry investors.  Efforts to ‘get off coal’ to help avoid catastrophic climate change could be expected to depress the marketability of coal and, in a relative manner, lower the value of coal companies and of coal deposits.

And, while the coal industry has been a highly profitable sector in recent years, a way for an investor to make money amid market turmoil and losses, the coal sector definitely seems to have been constrained in the face of developing House climate legislation, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.  That is, until recently …

While market signals are often inaccurate, they often tell a powerful story.

In late April, it became increasingly clear that Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on paths to satisfy coal industry interests in seeking to get the ACES out of committee and to the rest of the House. And, coal industry investors seem to have picked up the message.

While having seen rather mild increases for the previous several months, while the rest of the stock market was well into the Obama bounce, in May (through last Thursday, 21 May), the coal industry skyrocketed past the overall market’s performance.  While the Dow is up 5.1 percent for the last month (including the large, over 2 percent, day’s jump as of 1400 26 May 09) as of , the coal index jumped 27 percent through 21 May.

What does it mean for the prospect of avoiding catastrophic climate change when coal stocks’ surge mirrors climate bill concessions?

Perhaps investors like the $trillion+ in direct and indirect subsidies for the fossil fuel industry …

NOTE: Of course there are other factors, such as analysts (after the rebound had started) upgrading the sector on expectation of coal price increases and the overall energy sector’s bumps.

With a look at his area’s opportunities for augmenting low-GHG power from hydropower, a guest post from Badger from the Pacific Northwest.

Driving around Washington State and Oregon this weekend, I saw more examples of how the Pacific Northwest is leading in installing renewable energy systems, not only in the future, but right now, with creative ideas, public-private partnerships, and private investment.

How’s your part of the country doing?

[Read more →]

This evening, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act out for consideration by the rest of the House.

This bill is filled with good … and bad elements. It has strong provisions for improving energy efficiency in the United States, a weak renewable energy standard, and massive (MASSIVE) direct and indirect subsidies and payoffs for the fossil fuel industries.

This is a challenging moment.

There are environmental organizations cheering from the rooftops. There are environmental organizations declaring their opposition. And, there are those vowing to fight even harder.

Some reactions

There has been a range of reaction to E&C’s passage of ACES.

There is President Obama’s quite strong statement.

I commend Chairman Waxman and the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for a successful effort to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill out of their committee today. We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America. The bill is historic for what it achieves, providing clean energy incentives that encourage innovation while recognizing the concerns of sensitive industries and regions in this country. And this achievement is all the more historic for bringing together many who have in the past opposed a common effort, from labor unions to corporate CEOs, and environmentalists to energy companies. I applaud the committee for its action and look forward to signing comprehensive legislation.

Sierra Club issued a nuanced statement:

Moving a comprehensive clean energy jobs plan through a committee historically dominated by those with ties to the oil, coal, and other polluting industries is a laudable victory and truly historic accomplishment. Chairmen Waxman and Markey have led the way and it is certain that this feat never could have happened without their extraordinary leadership. They have long been champions for the environmental movement and we congratulate them on achieving this critically important milestone. This bill puts the U.S. on the path to slash the carbon emissions that cause global warming 80 percent by 2050, a signal accomplishment necessary to preserve the planet for future generations.

“While the plan approved by the committee establishes a sound framework for achieving its vital goals, Big Oil, Big Coal, and dirty power companies like Southern Company extracted a steep price at the expense of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other provisions critical to protecting both the planet and the public interest. As this piece of legislation moves forward we will work with our allies to mount a vigorous effort to strengthen this bill in a few fundamental areas

Greenpeace is less restrained in its criticism

Greenpeace is calling for renewed leadership from President Obama and Congress following the release of the drastically weakened Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill today. The American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES) was already in need of improvement when first released as a discussion draft in March, and has become severely worse as members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee actively worked to weaken the bill on behalf of fossil fuels industries and other corporate polluters

There are a wide range of reactions out there, from celebrating fossil-fuel companies and some “environmental organizations” popping champagne corks in celebration to environmental activists throwing away vodka caps in despair.

Among these reactions, one stands out at the moment.

Wow Gillian

Amid all the reactions, One Sky‘s Gillian Caldwell has one of the most interesting and passionate of organizational reactions to ACES passage so far this evening.

“By passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
introduced as H.R. 2454 (ACES), [1] the Energy and Commerce Committee has taken an historic first step toward America’s clean energy future.

Okay, politeness says that you start with praise.

“We believe that the ACES bill introduced by Chairmen Henry A. Waxman (CA-30) and Edward J. Markey (MA-7) is the only viable legislative opportunity we have before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of 2009 to move the United States toward a clean energy economy that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, make us more energy independent, and limit dangerous global warming pollution.

One of the real challenges in trying to figure out how to react to ACES is this: what is the import of acting before Copenhagen, is there any other opportunity, and what will the reaction be if ACES is the law of the land.

Representatives Waxman and Markey have worked tirelessly day and night to try to deliver a bill that will provide a clean energy future.

Do you need help in finding the critical words here: “to try”. Waxman and Markey tried, they truly did, even if they didn’t do so.

“However, it is clear given the changes since the discussion draft that Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other polluters are continuously working to weaken the bill and secure funds and bailouts for their industries on the backs of American consumers.

Let’s put Gillian’s comments in perspective.

Fiscal analysis of the 85% of carbon pollution permits that are to be given away results in, from 2012 through 2030, $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Have to wonder why “Clean Energy” is in the title. Would it be more appropriate to entitle it Coal Subsidy Act?

How did this happen?

In the last three months alone, oil, coal, and natural gas companies have outspent environmental groups 16 to 1. The industries spent $79 million to lobby Congress, outspending the Green community’s comparatively meager $4.7 million in the same time period. Exxon-Mobil alone spent $9.3 million, over twice the amount of money spent by the entire environmental community combined.

At the end of the day, it seems likely that One Sky’s analysis understates the full extent of that lobbying. What about the funding of think tanks? The expenditure of resources to support articles and studies? Organizational (US Chamber of Commerce) efforts?

Even so, Exxon-Mobil alone spent more than all the environmental organizations combined?

As this bill moves through Congress, 1Sky is resolved to be 16 times louder, and will count on the power and resolve of ordinary citizens from all walks of life, channeling their voices in ways that move and improve this bill, to make up for the disparity in the financial resources we have to apply to the task.

This is what got me. That “1Sky is resolved to be 16 times louder.”

It is well past time for loud civic action calling not “for climate legislation”, not for “80 by 2050”, but for meaningful legislation that lives up to three basic principles:

1. Scientifically Sound
2. Polluters Pay
3. Equitably Socially

Theser are simple principles, principles that the American people could support. But the case must be made — to the citizens and, through them, the members of Congress.

“While frustration from many in the climate and environmental community about the compromises made to get this bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee are understandable,

Yes, Gillian, our “frustration [is] understandable”. Actual, it is outrage and horror.

we believe it is critical to channel this energy constructively to achieve the win upon which our survival and prosperity depends.

This, we should strive to do. “Channel … energy constructively” rather than going silently into the night (okay, not silently — howling at the moon, perhaps).

We must pass U.S. climate and energy legislation strong enough to demonstrate U.S. leadership and strengthen our negotiating power to bring in other heavy emitters like China and India to an international treaty.

“Strong enough …” Another basic principle that ACES fails to meet.

“1Sky and our allies look forward to working with members of Congress to explore every opportunity to strengthen the bill on the House floor and beyond, and to ensure that the President has the necessary tools to broker a fair and effective global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December of 2009. We also urge the White House and our champion President Obama to demonstrate even more robust leadership in helping ensure that our Congress delivers bold energy and climate policy that gets the job done.”

Yes.

Leadership.

Robust leadership.

And, yes Congress, “deliver bold energy and climate policy that gets the job done.”

Sadly, with all due respect to Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey, ACES doesn’t merit that description.

Time to figure out how to be 16 times louder

The House Energy and Commerce Committee looks poised to vote on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act later today. As this bill has developed, from an already compromised draft bill through massive compromising to reach a bill submission to committee markups, it has reached the point as to whether it is more appropriately called the “Assuring Coal Energy Subsidies” Act.

This bill has moved away from core climate legislation principles. Rather than auctioning off all permits, as candidate Obama promised and President Obama put into the submitted budget, some 85 percent of permits will be given away. Taking a look at preliminary analysis (updated 20 May 09), these can be broken into these major categories:

• 25 percent directly to fossil-fuel companies and energy-intensive industries. (13% for energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, 5% for the fantasy of clean-coal, 5 percent for coal-plant operators, and 2 percent for oil refineries). This is direct subsidy for the continued use and burning of polluting energy.
• 52 percent indirect subsidies to the burning of fossil fuels through buffering commercial and residential customers from any cost increases due to carbon pricing (30 percent), providing funds to natural gas companies  (6%), low-income rebates due to rising energy costs (15%), home-heating oil rebates (1 percent).
• 13 percent to energy efficiency and renewable energy including clean tech R&D (1.5%), deployment (5.5%), electric vehicles (1%), state and local energy efficiency (4%), and subsidizing international clean energy (1%)
• Other including reducing tropical deforestration (5 percent), international adaptation (1%), deficit reduction (2%),  green jobs and transition training/assistance (.5%), domestic adaptation (2%))

Let us summarize, this is 77 percent for subsidizing directly and indirectly the burning of polluting fossil fuels and 13 percent for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

According to analysis by Point Carbon, the first category is valued at $314 billion for 2012-2030, the second at $747 billion, the third at $127.4 billion.  Thus, their fiscal estimate is $1 trillion 61 billion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels against $127.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Can anyone logically explain how this continues to merit “Clean Energy” in the title?

The announced deal to strengthen auto mileage standards, aiming for a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, has many implications. One of these is, quite clearly, reduced oil use. According to President Obama

we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that’s more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined. (Applause.) Here’s another way of looking at it: This is the projected equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year.

The Union of Concerned Scientists did an initial analysis translated this into other benefits.  “implementing the standard outlined in the plan would:

• curb U.S. oil dependence by about 1.4 million barrels of oil per day by 2020, nearly as much as we currently import from Saudi Arabia.
• cut heat-trapping emissions by 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020, equivalent to taking 34 million of today’s cars and light trucks off the road that year.
• deliver net savings to consumers of $30 billion in 2020, even after covering the cost of technology improvements, based on a gas price of $2.25 per gallon.
• deliver $70 billion in net savings in 2020 if gas prices spike to $4 per gallon again.

Note this 1.4 million barrels per day. That would translate to some 500 million barrels of oil saved each year.
[Read more →]

George Will has a pattern for Will-ful disdain for facts if they get in the way with his ideological agenda.

Will’s latest column is filled with disdain directed at Secretary of Transportation Roy Lahood.

Very briefly, two examples of factual errors.

1. Will-ful disdain for truth: “Does [LaHood] think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?” Fact:  Okay George, in fact, .4 percent of Americans currently bike to work. It isn’t a stunning amount but it 40 times greater than the percentage you suggest is lunacy. Facts, George, facts …
2. Will-ful disdain for truth:  “Intercity high-speed rail probably always will be the wave of the future, for cities more than 300 miles apart.” Fact: Marseille is 783 kilometers (okay, George, you might be metrically challenged: that is a little less than 500 miles) from Paris.  There are 12 TGVs (that is France’s high-speed rail, George) with other connections as well to further distances. And, by the way, George, they don’t travel empty.  Facts, George, Facts …

Sadly, George’s editors don’t see fit to actually require George to be connected to reality in his published works.  And, sadly, readers rely on editorials and publications’ fact checkers to make sure that basic information is correct. And, as per these two examples, that is too frequently not the case with George “Will-fully Deceitful” Will.

[Read more →]

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the repository for the reference case analysis for US energy usage and projections.  Sometimes constrained politically and bureaucratically, their analyses have often seem highly fossil-fuel friendly and undervaluing of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Considering that record, last week’s announcement of the Obama Administration nominee to be the next Administrator of the EIA suggests that this pattern is about to be broken.

Richard Newell

is the Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.  He has published widely on the role of energy markets, economic incentives and other energy policy options, particularly those intended to spur the development of alternative energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve efficiency.

Prior to joining the Duke faculty in 2007, Newell was senior economist for energy and environment on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and a senior fellow at Resources for the Future,

Joining a mounting tradition of Obama appointees who actually have substantive knowledge in the arenas where they have responsibilities, check out the publications list of this several year old resume: about four page list, with most relevant for his new responsibilities and for bringing understanding to the opportunities and challenges before us, such as:

• Uncertain Discount Rates in Climate Policy Analysis. Energy Policy 32(4):519-529. With William A. Pizer. 2003
• The Economics of Energy Efficiency. Forthcoming in the Encyclopedia of Energy, Cutler
  Cleveland, ed, Elsevier. With Adam B. Jaffe and Robert N. Stavins. 2003
• Managing Permit Markets to Stabilize Prices, Workshop on Instrument Design and Choice in Environmental Regulation, Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland, October 2002.
• Energy Efficiency and Climate Policy: Issues and Evidence, Americans for Equitable Climate Solutions, Washington, DC, May 2002.

See here for 73 Richard Newell publications at RFF including the co-authored April 2009 Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy and the May 2009 Designing Cliamte Mitigation Policy.

A guest post from “loblolly” in which “A retired science teacher looks at subtle and not so subtle efforts by the oil and coal industry and global warming deniers to subvert environmental education in the public schools, by spreading doubt and making teaching about global warming a controversial topic in public school classrooms.”

Received from a parent, sending forward material to be used in the classroom:

I know you are as sick of environmental extremists as I am. Bjorn Lomberg has a refreshing perspective. Enjoy the videos with the class!

A few years ago, at the very beginning of the school year, we weren’t studying anything more controversial than laboratory safety rules. One of my new 6th graders, handed me this note from his mother, attached to a 100+ page reprint, along with a stack of videos on climate change.

I am a scientist by training and a teacher by profession. I have two degrees in biology and biochemistry. I also confess that I am an environmentalist.  For years, the IPPC reports have stated with more and more certainty that global warming is occurring, and that humans are “very likely” the  cause, so I was taken aback by the assertion that climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic ( human-caused) global warming are environmental extremists who have it all wrong.

I started looking into the sources of the materials on my desk. Although it is sometimes difficult sort out some of the arguments used by global warming deniers, it’s fairly easy to look the references they quote. Some research a  revealed that Bjorn Lomborg is a statistitian with no credentials whatsoever in climate science. He believes that we now live in the best, cleanest, healthiest word ever.  As far the videos, the fine print on the back  said that they were  produced by an organization called the Western Fuels Association, which I learned is a multi-million dollar consortium of coal fired power plants.  Although it was out of the question to just show the entire videos as  this parent wanted,  I tried to appease her by using a few clips of one of her videos, “The Greening of the Earth”. I have learned since then that it was produced and distributed by Western Fuels at a cost of $250,000. Insults and hyperbole abound.  In one clip, climate computer modeling  is called ” garbage in- garbage out” ;  another discussed the how extra CO? from burning fossil fuels would be a great boon for growing soybeans. I also showed a few clips from a video on global warming produced by an environmental group. We discussed  the possible prejudices of different points of view in the two videos. The students were very good at figuring out the biases of each group.  The mother who sent the videos was not mollified, In fact, she was irate.

It’s just an acorn. The sky’s not falling!

[Read more →]