Now that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced their climate bill in the U.S. Senate, this fall will be all about changing canine colors. To get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill, progressive Democrats will be trying to turn Blue Dog Democrats into Green Dog Democrats.
Welcome to the dog days of autumn. Watch for progressives to offer milk bones, kibbles and bits to coax their more conservative colleagues into commitments that conscience alone should be sufficient to dictate.
The challenge for leaders in the Senate, as it was in the House, will be to prevent the climate bill from being negotiated into something far less than required to reinvent the American economy and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions, and to do both quickly.
Whether Senate leaders succeed in producing public policy that averts climate disaster will depend in large part on how they frame the debate. Here are three suggestions:
First, the fence-sitters in Congress must be made to understand that climate change is not a matter of belief and it is not something we can bargain away. Climate change is a matter of physics and chemistry and associated science. We might quibble about precisely what global warming will do to us and how quickly it will happen. But the bedrock reality, already evident in the world around us, is that the atmosphere, the oceans and other natural systems vital to life have reached the limits of their tolerance of economic growth at any cost. They can’t absorb more damage, not without making the planet a very unpleasant place for life as we know it.
This may be a difficult fact for many Senators to accept. Congress usually is an auction house and a horse-trading arena. But carbon emissions are to the atmosphere what virulent cancer cells are to the body. We can’t wish them away. We can’t bargain with them. If we want to survive, we must treat them as quickly and aggressively as we are able, with the very best tools we have.
Second, there is no such thing as business as usual. Senators who want to protect their constituents from change, including rust belt and fossil energy industries, are voting for an outcome that cannot happen. Senators who tell their constituents they can continue living and doing business in the old carbon-intensive economy are not leading. They are pandering.
The reality is, we face a stark choice between two futures. One is a future of unmitigated climate change that proves disastrous to ecosystems, our economy, our national security, our public health and our public debt as government at all levels struggles to deal with a nation of Katrinas – not just hurricanes, but extreme weather events, severe drought, the loss of coastal communities and infrastructure, killer heat waves, more pests and diseases, and so on. That is the future we will create by default if we try to prolong business as usual.
In the second future we still will see evidence of climate change – we’ve made that inevitable by refusing to act earlier – but we will have made the transition to an economy powered by clean resources and technologies, in which we have stopped relying on foreign and finite fuels, and in which sound environmental practice and socially responsible behavior are ingrained in all we do.
Third, we are not an island. We have been isolationists many times in our history. In the context of climate change, for example, the Senate decided during the Clinton years that the United States would stand alone in refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But climate change makes clear that one nation’s pollution is every nation’s problem. We are interconnected with other societies and nations in a global economy, a global energy market, and a planetary commons.
As the military establishment has concluded, poverty, dislocation and unrest in any part of the world have national security implications for the United States. That is especially true with climate change, which will destabilize some of the most volatile regions of the world.
Because we live in an interconnected world, it is in the self-interest of rich nations to help poor nations satisfy the basic needs of their people with environmentally benign resources and behaviors. Technical and monetary assistance to the developing world – one of the sticking points in reaching an international climate deal — is not charity; it is necessary for our mutual assured survival.
Reuters predicts this will be a “labor intensive” fall for progressives as they try to figure out how to craft a climate bill that gets the votes of moderates and conservatives. For example, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio reportedly wants language that protects steel, glass, paper, aluminum and other energy-intensive industries.
Coal-state Senators want to protect the industries that produce, haul and burn the most carbon-intensive and dirtiest of fossil fuels. For example – again according to Reuters – Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, where mining companies are blowing up mountains, destroying streams and rivers and polluting groundwater for cheap coal, wants a bill whose carbon-cutting goals are relaxed enough to buy time for the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. Democratic Sen. John Tester of Montana also wants a bill that bets heavily on clean coal technology to protect the mining industry in his state.
But by most estimates, clean coal technology is a decade or more away, if it proves plausible at all. Leading climate scientists tell us that carbon emissions from industrial nations like the U.S. must peak around 2015-2017 and begin a rapid decline. We don’t have time to relax our timetable for emission reductions or to wait for untested new technologies to save us.
In these new frames, policy makers must start asking different questions.
The question Senators should be asking is not “How will I protect my current industries?” It’s “How can I help the industries and workers of the old economy make the transition to the new energy economy, as rapidly and seamlessly as possible?”
The question is not “How long will our coal and oil supplies last?” It’s “How much of these fuels can the atmosphere stand, and how quickly can we move away from them?”
The question is not “Why should we send more money to developing nations?” It is ”What can we do to help end extreme poverty around the world so that we create greater security, greater economic and environmental stability, fewer resource conflicts, and vast new markets for green goods and services?”
As they decide which of our two futures they will support, Senators should dust off the landmark study issued last June by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the work of 13 federal agencies. Although it was the first major climate report of the Obama Administration, its conclusions are based on science reports produced by the Bush Administration.
Overall, the report concludes that climate change already is reshaping our lives in the United States with warmer winters, heavier downpours, rising sea levels and drought. The report goes on to offer federal scientists’ best predictions of what will happen region by region if we try to continue business as usual. Here is a sample:
Southwest: Climate change will produce more intensive drought in this region, resulting in increasingly scarce water supplies and conflicts for water between industries, agriculture and cities. Climate change will result in higher temperatures and invasive species that “accelerate transformation of the landscape”; more flooding with risks to people, infrastructure and ecosystems; and a disruption of the region’s unique tourism and recreation industries. Sen. McCain should keep this in mind as he weighs whether his advocacy for more nuclear power will stand in the way of his vote for a strong climate bill.
Great Plains: If Sens. Dorgan and Tester oppose a strong climate bill, they will in effect support more droughts and disappearing water resources in their region. Most of the region’s water comes from the High Plains aquifer, where withdrawals already outpace recharge. Climate-induced drought and faster evaporation rates will lead to more stress on this vital resource. As a result of this stress and higher temperatures, agriculture, which covers 70 percent of the Great Plains states, will suffer declining productivity.
Midwest: Without forceful action against climate change, Sen. Brown’s region will suffer more frequent, severe and longer-lasting heat waves. The water level in the Great Lakes will decline, affecting shipping, beaches, ecosystems and infrastructure. The region will experience bigger and more intense rainfalls leading to more flooding, along with periods of water deficits. Flooding will endanger local economies, public health and infrastructure. Agriculture will be hurt. Livestock production will become more costly due to heat, while spring flooding will delay planting seasons. Insect pests and weeds will increase.
Southeast: Average summer temperatures will increase 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit under a high-emissions scenario, stressing people, animals, plants and the built environment. Pavement and rail lines will buckle from the heat. Diminishing water supplies are “very likely” to affect the regional economy and its natural systems, and lead to more water conflicts between states. Southeastern coastal states will experience more intense hurricanes (higher wind speeds, more rain and bigger storm surges) due to rising ocean temperatures and sea levels. Low-lying areas, including some communities, will be inundated more frequently, some permanently. The region will suffer major disruptions to its ecosystems, along with the benefits those systems provide. It will be transformed from the Sun Belt to the Heat Belt, adversely affecting quality of life in the region and resulting in a decrease in population.
Northeast: Warming temperatures will shift maple syrup production from the United States to Canada. Dairy and fruit production will diminish, too, as well as lobster and cod fisheries. The length of the snow season will be cut in half across much of the region. Winter sports, which now contribute $7.6 billion annually to the region, will be hurt; only one part of the region, farthest north, will be able to support a viable ski industry. As in other regions, hotter temperature and poorer air quality will cause problems for human health, particularly in cities.
Other Coastal States: Sea level rise already has resulted in the loss of 1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands in Louisiana during the past century, weakening the Gulf Coast’s natural buffer against hurricanes. Coastal Senators who oppose strong climate action will sentence their constituents to significant increases in sea levels that endanger homes, communities, roads, energy facilities and other infrastructure in low-lying and subsiding areas. For example, about 2,400 miles of roads and 250 miles of freight rail lines could be inundated along the Gulf Cost alone. Coastal dead zones will increase in size and intensity in the Gulf and the Chesapeake Bay.
It should be apparent that there is no business as usual. There is no status quo. There are only two futures, one bleak and dangerous, the other challenging but still fundamentally bright and hopeful. Senators will have to choose which future they support and which America they represent: a no-can-do nation that fails to rise to the preeminent challenge of our time, or a can-do nation that mobilizes its energy, genius and patriotism to remake the country so that it prospers in the 21st Century.
Senators who worry about the impact of higher fossil energy prices on businesses and families vastly underestimate the power of clean energy technologies, the coping skills and innovative capacity of the American people, and the willingness of their countrymen to pitch in for our common global good.
We face two futures, but there is only one responsible choice. Let that be the framework in which climate action is debated in the weeks to come.
– Bill Becker
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Hear hear!
I saw Senator Brown yesterday when he came to my school (Oberlin) and asked him specifically whether the inclusion of the IMPACT Act (currently not in the Senate Bill) would be sufficient to get his vote. He said he needed support for energy-intensive industries and possibly even more important, border adjustment provisions (or fair trade standards) to ensure that we are not at a competitive disadvantage to other countries without such standards. I do not know whether he is as well versed in climate science as I would like (he’s among the “coal is going to continue to play a part of the picture” crowd), but I do believe that he is sincere in his commitment to taking concrete action against global warming and for green jobs. I asked him specifically about John Rockefeller’s recent statement that a 20% emissions cut was a step backward, and he said that the 20% cut is not an issue for him, it could even be higher as far as he’s concerned.
But trade and Ohioan manufacturing infrastructure is a longstanding issue with the Senator- core even- and given the horrific job loss numbers since the signing of NAFTA, I can’t really blame him. Contesting the fact that Ohioans (and most Midwesterners with a stake in manufacturing) feel abused and abandoned by federal policy will not remedy the situation, and while I wish I and others could change the entire state’s recognition of climate urgency, I don’t know that that’s going to happen between now and the vote. I’m really hoping there are some border adjustment provisions eventually involved because I really do not see him voting for it without them, and I definitely doubt the other ten he’s rallied will vote for it if he doesn’t (and given what we’ve seen in health care, forgive me if I think waiting for any Republicans is going to yield mostly gray hairs and wasted money on ads among our side). It’s likely this has already been addressed here, so I apologize if I’m missing a key study, but what are the arguments against including border adjustment provisions? Because it’s not yet clear to me how they would compromise the bill.
Good one, Joe. Too bad such an intelligent, even inspiring clarion call as this one is falling on the ears of a group of Congressmen who seem so little able to listen.
Brown has a point about the heavy industries in Ohio. They would lose whatever competitiveness they still have if they have to go against imports from Canada, Mexico, and China that are unburdened by carbon restrictions or taxes. Steel, for example, is only responsible for 2.1% of US emissions, and is a necessary material. We’re only making 91 million tons per year now, compared to China’s 500 million tons, partly because the Chinese operate without even simple pollution restrictions. If tech modifications or emissions targets in these industries aren’t multilateral, there will have to be tariffs on countries trying to exploit our foresight. This should also apply in the other direction if, for example, we fail to bring our standards up to Europe’s.
Rockefeller’s stance is much more damaging. There are clean substitutes for coal for power generation, and voting for them to destroy what’s left of the Appalachian range is pure pandering. Competing against imports is not an issue, since it’s all dirty. I can’t imagine what’s in Rockefeller’s head, since he doesn’t need the money. Glory? reelection? who knows? He’s sitting on a big piece of the problem in West Virginia.
According to what I read, Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy does not see Clean Coal in our future. In fact, he has taken Duke Energy out of the Clean Coal Coalition. This was Rogers as quoted in a Kate Shepard story in the Washington Independent.
.
If you line up Rockefeller with Byrd, Durbin, Dorgan, Conrad, Tester, I can only see that the Democratic Leadership will mortgage our future for the sake of those votes. All Mitch McConnell has to do is whisper the word filibuster.
And here you have Rogers expecting China to take the lead in CCS and we know that they are cleaning our solar energy clock. But then, Glenn Beck rails about the CO2 they produce as an excuse to do nothing.
[JR: 60 votes are needed. That is the way things are. A good bill can still be passed and I expect it will be -- but the deniers and Delayers can still triumph if our side doesn't fight hard enough.]
Another 2099 weather map from Romm. You couldn’t even predict a October 2009 map if you wanted to.
[JR: It's a "climate" map. You might try learning the distinction between weather and climate if you want to comment intelligently here or anywhere.]
I call again for Democratic Senators to offer nuclear financing and OCS drilling to Republicans to buy votes.
60 votes eh. Is that the bill that only cuts emissions relative to 1990 by 2.5%?
[JR: A little more. Basically same as the House, though, where majority rules.]
God its a big oil tanker and needs serious time to be a turning. SO does this mean that the USA expects the rest of the world to pick up the initial slack that the USA feels it cannot deal with or are we awaiting momentum to build up and then the USA will cut its emissions in the future twice as fast as everyone else once its built up a head of steam?
To some degree the rest of the world might just be thinking that the USA wants us to make its cake and then it eats the lot. I know its hard for the USA to do this due to its present infrastructure and its political make up but lets hope it does accelerate its mitigation once it gets that 2.5-5% out of the way. I mean by 2020 thats next to nothing so my mind is split on this one.
Here is what I want:
American solar panels and
American wind turbines and
American electric cars getting made in
American factories outside
American cities and towns by
American workers making an
American wage and belonging to an
American union using
American machine tools and their
American hands.
The climate bill needs to be presented in just this form to the blue dogs, and the few Republicans who will listen. As a nice by-product, we get CO2 reduction, less imported oil and a healthier economy. Who could possibly be against that?
Re #9, the rest of the world in a fair capatalist fight to renewables. SO much for the USA wanting a fair fight. Cake and eat it but I guess thats the empire in you.
rumpole! — One wonders: If climate action had been framed from the beginning as a jobs program, a national defense program and a public health imperative, rather than an environmental issue, would a bill have passed long ago? I think so.
Do we need 60 votes for the bill or 60 votes for cloture? If we can secure our ranks at least that far then we’ll be in a much better position. Of course, if health care is any guide, closing ranks is a bit like trying to corral squirrels, self-destructive, corrupt squirrels.
There’s also the nuclear option (procedural technique, not uberexpensive power plants), but since it’s so obscure and Dems have shown little willingness to go there (despite the fact that Republicans have in the past) that seems unlikely. And there’s no reconciliation path like there might have been with health care.
And re #10, how is a fair capitalist fight one that races to the bottom of labor standards? If anything it should be clear that there is no such thing as a ‘fair capitalist fight’. The fossil fuel economy was encouraged and incentivized and so must a clean energy economy be. But why should we incentivize an economy that trims the living standards of the people working in it? In this economic climate people are going to be more concerned with immediate social sustainability than environmental sustainability, no matter how much we know that ultimately the environmental side is going to bite them in the ass. We need to meet others’ needs compellingly by providing a wholesome, not hollow, alternative to the existing economy.
Fossil fuels are subsidized by a lot of countries. Stop it and give it to renewables and then coal, oil and gas companies can become energy companies and we can stop protectionist employment to. There no where as fake capatalist as the USA I suppose.
Re: #3, Mike Roddy.
Good point, Mike: border adjustments should be sellable to all sides, and I don’t think there’s any cause to object to them in principle. They should be structured to encourage trading partners to take strong climate action of their own, and to reward such action – carrot as well as stick.
As for Canada and Mexico, both have ratified the Kyoto Accord, though Canada is way, way over its target, largely due to the tar sands, but also our lack of policy action. There are sectoral emission caps in the pipeline in Canadian federal policy, but only starting in 2011 and not getting much priority.
The sense up here is that our Federal government has in effect put our policy plans on hold, waiting to see what shape U.S. policy will take; we will then have to harmonize our rules with yours, to keep things working smoothly within NAFTA. Our current Parliament is a four-way split with a minority Conservative government who have shown a negative attitude toward Kyoto, and with their power base in Alberta, home of the tar sands and highly averse to carbon constraining policies. So we won’t be taking any bold first steps, but our dependence on trade with the U.S. suggests we’re in no position to lag much behind any U.S. moves.
On the other hand, Alberta is perhaps surprisingly the first jurisdiction in North America to already have imposed a price on carbon emissions. They have a cap on total emissions and sectoral allocations of tradeable permits, and any firm whose emissions exceed its allowance must either buy more permits on the market, or pay a (currently modest $15) per tonne penalty into a clean technology development fund. I heard a podcast of a talk by their provincial environment minister about this early step, and if I hadn’t known, I would never have guessed I was listening to a Conservative Alberta politician! He really sounded like he ‘gets it.’
Let’s talk about achievable, workable solutions:
1. New Energy Building Codes with very aggressive cuts in energy use, and TEETH to enforce them can buy a lot of time and carbon reductions at the source, original energy use. If Americans use substantially less energy, we won’t need so many supply-side miracles. Roughly half of all U.S. energy use is from buildings, and continuing to build them the wrong way will mean erecting mistakes that will be with us for a very long time. We will regret the day we missed this opportunity to STOP DOING THINGS WRONG.
No one has written about how the Senate bill guts the House bill’s section that provided for very strong new Energy Building Codes. While the House bill provided for mandated new Energy Building Codes, the building code section in the Senate bill seems to lack any enforcement mechanism and even talks about monitoring how many states have adopted the new Codes. It seems to have gone back to developing a “model” Code with no teeth whatsoever to enforce it.
Blue Dogs and Grey Dogs who want more time for aggressive action on the supply side, need to support more aggressive actions on the efficiency side.
2. Has anyone noticed the direction the debate is going? Fantasy land/Lobbyist Land “solutions” are moving in to take all the money. Neither “clean coal” nor new nuclear power plants are likely to be viable, yet both take so much money they leave few resources for the solutions that actually do work (Smart Grid, efficiency, renewables with storage).
3. Rather than throw more money at loan-defaulting nuclear power plants, invest in dispatchable (better-than-baseload) renewable power by extending the 30% Investment Tax Credit to apply to energy storage technologies. This should apply regardless of what the source of electricity is that is stored — i.e. not just to back up renewables but as a key component of Smart Grid load shifting and leveling from all electricity sources. This technology is needed far more urgently than nuclear power, in exactly the regions of the swing vote Senators — e.g. Maine’s proposed RiverBank Power pumped-hydro project, Midwest (Blue Dog)Senators’ needs for ways to firm up their huge wind power resources e.g. through Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES), and Arizona’s need for energy storage for huge SW solar farms.