Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — [does this make him an Icon?] — and John Warner (R-Va.) unveiled their long-awaited climate plan. It looks pretty good to me because

1. It is bipartisan — indeed, it follows the strategy recommended by moderate senators like Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
2. It starts quickly — by 2012 we must return to 2005 levels.
3. It has a credible 2050 target — and requires regular reports from the National Academy of Sciences on the “extent to which the emissions reductions achieved under the Act no, together with actual steps taken by other nations, stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level adequate to forestall catastrophic impacts of climate change.”
4. It does not have a safety valve, but instead has banking and borrowing.

This plan will be the starting point for legislation from Sen. Boxer (D-CA). Here is a detailed summary from Greenwire (subs. req’d):

Read more

E&E Daily (subs. req’d) confirms earlier press reports:

Markey [D-MA] said in a statement yesterday that he decided to pull his amendment after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), even though he believed he had the votes to move the legislation. While Pelosi personally favored a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon, industry lobbyists said she did not whip votes on the legislation and it appeared Markey was not assured of the votes needed to pass the bill.

Sad, really. This is a centerpiece of any energy or climate legislation — and much of the heavy lifting had already been done to get Senate approval.

Markey is touting a fallback strategy:

Read more

Japan’s hybrid train hailed as the future of rail travel –The Independent. “The world’s first hybrid train service … is powered by a super fuel-efficient diesel engine and lithium-ion batteries that recharge every time the brakes are applied, a system that cuts power, noise and emissions by up to 60 per cent.

Everyone but Bush seems to get it on global warming — Buffalo News, op-ed. “Bush’s EPA administrator, Steve Johnson, told Congress the president intended to veto legislation to limit global warming pollution from major emitters.”

An Incomplete Energy Bill – New York Times, editorial. Three missing items: “The first is fuel economy. The House bill does not now require stronger fuel economy standards — a critical part of any energy policy that seeks to reduce oil imports and greenhouse gases…. Also missing is a national renewable electricity standard that would require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from wind power and other renewable sources…. Finally, somebody has to make sure that the rush to develop ethanol from corn and other sources is done in an environmentally responsible manner.”

John Dingell (D-MI) has written a very bizarre defense of his poison pill plan in, “The Power in the Carbon Tax.”

Let’s start with how the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee brazenly rewrites history to make his dubious case:

History shows that we respond to market forces. Between 1980 and 1981, the fuel economy of the vehicles Americans purchased increased 16 percent. That wasn’t because of a technological breakthrough or a regulatory requirement. It was because the price of gas had risen to the point where consumers made fuel economy a priority. Market forces and mechanisms proved far more powerful than mandates.

Uhh, not really. Rising prices may have sped up the rise in corporate average fuel-economy (CAFE) by a year or so, but that rise in CAFE had already been mandated by Congress with the CAFE standard. The figure shows what happened:

Dingell has cleverly cherry-picked the data from a one-year time period (1980-1981). Why did CAFE keep going up when gasoline prices collapsed? The law required it. By Dingell’s logic that only price matters, CAFE legislation saved the country from a collapse in fuel economy.

But in fact recent evidence makes clear price is not the driving force behind U.S. fuel economy. From 2002 to 2006, gasoline prices shot up more than a dollar a gallon, just as they did right before 1980 — but fuel economy has hardly budged. The lesson from history is clear: If you want a significant and permanent rise in fuel economy, you need tougher mandates. Nothing in the historical record suggests that a 50 cent a gallon gasoline tax would have a major impact on fuel economy — but it sure as heck would be politically unpopular.

The rest of Dingell’s op-ed is equally confused and misleading:

Read more

If you want the latest on plug ins and their batteries, read “Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars: How They’ll Solve the Fuel Crunch“:

Efficient, affordable, 110-volt-powered vehicles could be on dealers’ lots within three years–if engineers can get the lithium-ion batteries right. Popular Mechanics unravels the technology and crunches the numbers.