Conservative think tanks remain oblivious and impervious to the facts. They cling to global warming denial and delay even in the face of the remarkable advances both in scientific understanding about global warming and in clean technology solutions. They provide the foundational misanalysis (disanalysis?) for the entire conservative movement — although “movement” must be the wrong word for immovable ideologues who oppose any motion whatsoever on the central problems facing the nation and the planet.

We have seen that the Cato Institute remains intellectually bankrupt on both the urgency of the climate problem and the availability of cost-effective solutions. The Competitive Enterprise Institute actually runs ad campaigns aimed at destroying the climate for centuries. Kenneth Green, resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, gave a recent speech betraying a willful ignorance of climate science and energy technology.

Now the grand-daddy of them all, the Heritage Foundation, reveals it is not aging gracefully. It launched an absurd website and an even more ridiculous video in a bizarre effort to fight the Supreme-Court mandated effort to reduce global warming pollution.

Not content to merely oppose vital greenhouse gas regulation, Heritage recently published a rant and an analytical screed against even the idea of investing in clean technology as a dual strategy to help get us out of this economic mess while jumpstarting the national effort to avoid catastrophic global warming. First, Heritage blogger Nick Loris responded to the UN’s Green Economy Initiative and the Center for American Progress’s Green Recovery program with this absurd rant comparing those strategies to what the Nazis and Soviets did:

The United Nations is proposing an environmental ‘New Deal’ that would “be similar to Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal which helped the US recover from the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

First, the reality is that FDR’s New Deal did not help the U.S. recover from the Great Depression but simply made things worse. Second, the only thing a green ‘New Deal’ will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom. (Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is a telling portrayal of what collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany can lead to: impoverishment and oppression of freedom.)

The Wonk Room debunked this hysterical and ahistorical nonsense, then went on to note:

Loris’s charge of Nazi-Soviet “collectivism” is utterly bizarre. The U.N.’s Green Economic Initative is a mainstream capitalist effort, with research overseen by Pavan Sukdhev, a top investment banker and self-described “total capitalist.” Its press release celebrates venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, public-private partnerships, and growth of international markets. CAP’s Green Recovery program primarily uses tax credits and federal loans to spur private investment, as well as investment in a 21st-century public infrastructure.

Finally, David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change, published a truly bizarre disanalysis that conflates greenhouse gas regulations with a green recovery or green economic stimulus, “Impact of CO2 Restrictions on Employment and Income: Green Jobs or Gone Jobs?” Let me review it in detail. He begins:

Read more

John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA)

According to a report in National Journal’s CongressDaily, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has sufficient votes in the Democratic caucus to win a vote to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman announced his intent to take the chairmanship yesterday, telling reporters, “I think I have a good chance of winning.”

A likely measure of the depth of Waxman’s support is last month’s statement of climate principles, signed by 152 members, or two-thirds of the Democratic caucus, on October 2. The letter, led by Waxman, Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA), details much stronger standards than were found in the draft legislation Dingell produced the following week.

The National Journal reports:

Dingell is expected to win support from Majority Leader Hoyer, Midwestern Democrats, members of the Congressional Black Caucus — who typically back the seniority — and Blue Dog Coalition members.

The Blue Dogs are self-identified “conservative Democrats,” many of whom disproportionately supported Bush’s agenda. Dingell, it should be noted, is not a Blue Dog and is a strongly progressive voice on many issues.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), the coal-country chairman of the Energy & Commerce subcommittee that controls greenhouse pollution legislation, echoed the conservative mantra that this election provided no mandate for change. Supporting Dingell, Boucher warned that it would be problematic “if the first action of the new majority … is a dramatic move to the left.”

However, this is not an ideological battle. For example, Waxman has secured the support of senior Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), who told reporters he is “on Henry’s whip team.” Both Waxman and Dingell have made economic justice and public health central planks of their careers. Their differences are strategic, not ideological. Dingell’s work on climate change has emphasized the approach of protecting industry from economic harm, whereas Waxman believes that robust economic health will come from the transition to a clean energy economy.

UPDATE: National Journal’s Dan Friedman has updated his report with details of a call with Dingell supporters who “forcefully rejected” the claim Waxman has sufficient support to oust Dingell:

“These claims that Mr. Waxman has the votes are just not true,” said Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich. “There is no doubt in my mind at the end of the day that Chairman Dingell will still be referred to as Chairman Dingell.” Stupak and Reps. John Barrow, D-Ga., and Mike Doyle, D-Pa. said Waxman has not made a clear case for why he should replace Dingell. “I asked [Waxman] quite pointedly what his basis for challenging Mr. Dingell was,” Doyle said. “He was unable to give me a single reason why he thought Mr. Dingell shouldn’t be chairman other than the fact that he [Waxman] would be a better chairman.”

No — I don’t mean Obama will get an electric vehicle made in Nebraska, I mean he may win that obscure electoral vote from the Omaha area second Congressional District.

I promised to post the winner of the Climate Progress punditry prize for calling the US election yesterday (see “My election predictions … and yours“). But there remains too much uncertainty about the electoral votes and the makeup of the House of Representatives, and, to lesser extent, the Senate.

I’m going to wait until Monday, and whatever are the best numbers then I will probably go with, even though Georgia appears headed for a runoff for the Senate seat. I don’t think that will affect which of the five people who have a plausible chance of winning at this point proves to be the victor.

The oddest uncertainty remaining in the presidential race is that lone electoral vote in Omaha. As the Omaha World-Herald reports today:

Read more

I’m not exactly certain why this qualifies as news, but E&ENews PM just ran the story, “Economic revival should precede carbon caps, business leaders say.” Dog bites man.

I previously noted that lots of people who apparently never believed in serious climate action have been taking the opportunity of the economic slowdown to say we must back off intelligent emissions controls (see here).

Well, you’ll never guess who else is in the inactivist club:

“I think President-elect Obama believes turning the economy around is his first mission,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s top lobbyist, R. Bruce Josten, told reporters today. “He realizes that imposing a climate change structure right out of the gate would be one of the biggest taxes you could put on this economy, the weight of which may send it down further.”

The National Association of Manufacturers’ president and CEO, John Engler, came to a similar conclusion in a post-election press conference yesterday, saying the next administration must focus initially on expanding domestic oil drilling, nuclear power production and alternative energy manufacturing and installation.

[Note to Engler: Since apparently you've been on the space station for the past few days, let me just clue you in -- Your guy didn't win.]

“The [climate] debate will proceed cautiously as we look at the global economy,” Engler said.

“The energy issue has to be resolved almost as a precondition to get the climate issue resolved,” Engler added. “In this country, you can’t shut down more than half of the power from coal with nothing to replace it.”

These quotes are triply inane:

Read more

Greenwire dishes out the key names:

Former Clinton Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes will be in charge of transition planning for all of the key energy and environmental agencies, including U.S. EPA and the Interior, Energy and Agriculture departments. The transition team also will be split up by individual agencies.

At EPA, Obama has picked Robert Sussman and Lisa Jackson to run what will be a 10-12 person transition team, developing key policy recommendations and also monitoring the status of final Bush administration actions. Other members of the EPA transition team will be named in the coming days, according to two Obama advisers.

Sussman, 61, retired this year after a decade running Latham & Watkins’ environmental practice in Washington. He is also a senior fellow at the Podesta-led Center for American Progress. Previously, Sussman served during the first two years of the Clinton administration as deputy EPA administrator.

Jackson, 46, currently serves as administrator of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, though Gov. Jon Corzine (D) two weeks ago picked her to begin serving as his chief of staff starting Dec. 1. Jackson, an engineer, is the first African-American woman to run New Jersey’s environmental office.

Jackson also worked at U.S. EPA from 1987 to 2002, both in its headquarters and at its New York City regional offices.

Both Sussman and Jackson immediately jump to the top of the list of possible picks to replace Stephen Johnson as the next EPA administrator, though advisers in the campaign urged caution against making any assumptions.

Greewire notes that many other names are floating around:

Read more

I finally figured out why WordPress was throwing everyone’s comments into the spam folder. I have fixed that problem and the vast majority of comments will once again be posted immediately.

*Climate Progress still has its “Terms of Use,” which clearly state:

… you acknowledge and agree that we may do one or all of the following: (a) monitor the Submissions; (b) alter, edit, or remove any Submission….

I do delete comments spam that include swearing, vulgarity and gratuitous insults — this discussion is too important to be uncivil, even among those who strongly disagree.

Some people post comments and leave fake email addresses. I don’t think anonymous posters are a good idea. Such comments will ususally be deleted.

Finally, let me restate my policy on not allowing comments that simply rehash long-debunked disinformation:

Read more

As President-elect Obama begins the transition to the White House, what are his plans for addressing climate during his first 100 days in office? During today’s OnPoint, Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former Clinton energy official, discusses the prospects for climate legislation in 2009 and the importance of early action from the new administration. Romm talks about some potential appointees for positions within the Obama administration and explains how the shift in power may affect K Street lobbyists.

Video here. Transcript here.

The staid International Energy Agency is poised to bring a note of sanity back to the oil discussion next week, according to the Financial Times:

Oil prices will rebound to more than $100 a barrel as soon as the world economy recovers, and will exceed $200 by 2030, the International Energy Agency will say in its flagship report to be published next week.

“While market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over,” the report states….

“Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable,” the report states.

Duh!

This is a strong reaffirmation of IEA’s “dire forecast” from July (see “IEA warns of impending oil and gas supply crunch“).

The above figure is IEA’s new demand forecast. Needless to say, for global fossil fuel emissions to peak by about 2020 and drop 50% from current levels by 2050 — in order to have a chance of keeping total planetary warming at or below the (hopefully) safe level of 2°C [see "Must Read Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists"]– then a 25% increase in oil consumption is untenable.

The new report lays out a stark warning about the difficulty of increasing supply even that much in the next two decades — and a starker indirect warning about the gross misallocation of global resources needed to achieve that increase:

Read more

Newsweek‘s special election project has a great anecdote about Obama talking bluntly about dumb debate questions:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective‘.”

Good thing Obama didn’t actually say that because McCain probably would have later singled out his use of the word “collective” to argue that Obama believes in Soviet-style communism.

Seriously, though, how refreshing it will be to have a president who thinks and speaks intelligently on complicated issues like energy and climate.

For the record, here is how the April 26, 2007 exchange between Williams and Obama actually went:

Read more