Gov. McDonnell (R-VA) responds by pushing Bush-Cheney-Palin energy plan

This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are [sic] the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Getting a bill passed won’t be easy, but Obama is clearly still committed to make it happen.

The President did not soft-pedal his support for climate action and clean energy jobs, as expected. Quite the reverse.

He could have avoided any mention of the science, as I’m sure many of his advisors wanted.

He could have given climate and clean energy a cursory mention, but he went out of his way to repeat the core message again and again and again.  Indeed, he used the phrase “clean energy” ten times:

Read more

Media looking for comments on the speech and on how climate action creates jobs can reach me via email (click here) or quote the post below.

White House advisers spinning the boss’s State of the Union message late today are telling lawmakers to expect President Obama to press for passage of controversial climate change legislation because it will create jobs….

Job creation will be the president’s top priority. He will play up green jobs with a claim that passing energy and climate legislation””unlikely this year””will create jobs.

Shhh.  It’s a secret:  The climate and clean energy jobs bill … creates jobs.  For a discussion of two major 2009 studies see “New analysis shows how clean energy legislation will create 1.7 million jobs and opportunities for low-income families, including lower energy bills“).

Oh and the bill would stimulate the economy, according to one Nobel laureate (see Krugman : Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities”).  In fact, Krugman pointed out in November:

Read more

There seems to be something about climate policy that encourages senators to take positions that are logically impossible. In the latest instance, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has now managed to simultaneously oppose and support a carbon command-and-control regime. Nelson is one of three Democrats to co-sponsor Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution overturning the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, supposedly because “EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime”:

I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers and businesses.

The EPA’s rules will function as a soft cap on large emitters of global warming pollution, most of whom are already covered by Clean Air Act permits for traditional pollution. No new layers of bureaucracy will be created. However, the cost of fossil-based energy would slowly rise. Because it would be legally difficult for the EPA to establish an emissions trading system, companies could not use market means to mitigate those costs.

The ability of trading markets to reduce compliance costs for pollution reduction is the key selling point of a Congressionally established cap-and-trade market as opposed to a command-and-control regime. However, Nelson has also indicated he opposes a cap-and-trade system:

Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap and trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap and trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”

A cap without “trade” is by definition a command-and-control regime — which Nelson has said he opposes on economic grounds. But he claims to oppose a cap with “trade” on populist grounds. In short, he’s using logically inconsistent excuses to block both executive branch and legislative branch action on global warming.

Nelson may be trying to pander to polls, which show that the phrase “cap and trade” is unpopular by comparison to Americans’ desire for the government to regulate polluters and support clean energy investment. Or maybe he’s pandering to his corporate polluter donors, who need senators like Nelson to maintain the Bush-Cheney status quo.

This is Think Progress repost.

Last week, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections. The ruling gives corporations essentially the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. One consequence of this decision is that foreign corporations with U.S.-subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections.

Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. However, the National Journal reported today that corporate lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal.

Read more

Many major industries have climate risks, starting with insurers.  In this Wonk Room repost, Brad Johnson explains what the SEC did today to help investors understand what those risks are.  I’ll add a note on the two anti-science SEC commissioners at the end.

UPDATE:  SEC has put out a Press Release (and a video of the Chair’s statement).

In a 3-to-2 vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission determined today that companies “must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors.”

Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to disclose, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental- protection laws. In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

Read more

In a 3-to-2 vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission determined today that companies “must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors.”

Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to disclose, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental- protection laws. In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

Ceres, a network of investors and climate activists, hailed the action as “the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world.” More than a dozen investors managing over $1 trillion in assets, plus Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund, requested formal guidance in a petition filed with the Commission in 2007, and supported by supplemental petitions filed in 2008 and 2009.

For too long, the reality of climate change has been ignored by American business, exemplified by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s denial of global warming. This willful ignorance has left American business — from agriculture to the financial sector — unprepared for the increasing damages of climate change, such as sea level rise, drought and wildfires. Furthermore, these blinders have kept American business behind international competitors, who have leapt ahead by investing in the coming low-carbon economy.

Graham remains “hopeful after discussing this matter with conservation groups, businesses, and Senate colleagues we can be successful this year.” Nelson and Landrieu (!) open to comprehensive bill

UPDATE: The Energy Guardian (subs. req’d) aka the Washington Times reports tonight that Graham told reporters, “I’m not going to ask the environmental community to accept a compromise that doesn’t, in a serious way, deal with our carbon pollution problem.”

I wouldn’t want to mislead readers into thinking that it will be easy to get a climate bill this year.  Fundamentally, the politicians simply don’t understand the urgency on the climate science side, and they don’t understand it is a winning political issue with both progressives and independents in every single poll — unlike, say, health care reform (see “It’s all about Independents “” and Independence“).

Having botched progressive strategy and messaging for a year, who can expect a sudden turn-around?  And so even the NY Times editorial board, which makes a persuasive “Case for a Climate Bill,” starts:

The conventional wisdom is that the chances of Congress passing a bill that puts both a cap and a price on greenhouse gases are somewhere between terrible and nil.

That is indeed the conventional wisdom inside the DC Beltway.  But the NYT immediately follows that with

President Obama can start to prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week.

I want to be clear upfront that while I agree with the NYT that Obama is the key to getting a bill, if there isn’t a bill, the blame would go directly to the anti-science crowd (in and out of Congress), who have spread disinformation and demagogued the issue, while exploiting an antidemocratic supermajority “requirement” in the Senate (see “The central question for 2010: Will anti-science ideologues be able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill?“).

Indeed, the fundamental reason why the bill isn’t dead is that unlike HCR, it has a serious conservative champion, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and many moderate Republicans who have at various times indicated support for economy-wide action.  Today Graham was quoted in the NYT rather awkwardly saying what he usually says:

Read more

At auto shows, carmakers say electricity is the future

This slideshow features highlights of some of greenest cars at this year’s Detroit Auto Show.  This is a CAP repost.

Visitors have streamed through the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, MI over the past two weeks to look at innovative new designs from the industry.  And this year’s batch is the greenest yet.

Read more

In a shameless act of greenwashing, a coal-gasification startup has named itself without permission after Dr. Seuss’s beloved Lorax. LoraxAg, LLC, is a western Massachusetts company that is seeking investors for its “Green Coal Technology” of a coal gasification and chemical production facility. The company, whose principals include Michael Sununu, the son of former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, has raised over $1 million in seed capital to build a high-sulfur coal factory. The name choice was a deliberate attempt to cloak their coal-and-chemical company as an eco-friendly venture:

And, yes, the name is inspired by the Dr. Seuss story, Farina said. “The Lorax is the protector of the truffula trees,” he said. “We think this is the greenest use of coal.”

The “greenest use of coal” is keeping it in the ground — not blowing the tops off of mountains to burn it. While advanced technology to find less toxic use for high-sulfur coal is admirable, comparing it to the Lorax’s call to protect natural resources instead of plundering it is ludicrous. Furthermore, the comparison is an unauthorized copyright violation, the Wonk Room has learned.

“We had never heard of it until we heard from you,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises lawyer Karl Zobell told the Wonk Room in a phone interview. “We did not give permission for them to use the Lorax, which Dr. Seuss created. Typically we don’t like people to use Dr. Seuss terms without permission.”

In 1999, the hardwood flooring industry published “Truax,” a rewrite of the Lorax in which a logger convinces “Guardbark” that cutting down trees is really great and who really cares about endangered species anyway. The “green coal” of “LoraxAg” is similarly absurd.

(H/T Get Energy Smart Now)

Stimulus provided big boost for geothermal industry

The geothermal energy industry expanded by nearly 50 percent last year in confirmed new U.S. power projects, primarily because of cash from the federal stimulus law, the industry’s trade group said yesterday.

More than 6,440 megawatts of new U.S. projects are planned or under development, up 46 percent from 2008 numbers, the Geothermal Energy Association reported [click here for study]. The industry has a total installed capacity of more than 3,150 megawatts, up from about 2,900 megawatts in 2008.

“The geothermal energy industry is experiencing unprecedented growth with future years promising double-digit, year-over-year expansion,” said Karl Gawell, GEA’s executive director, in a statement. “While stimulus money has been driving much of the recent growth, we are also seeing that as geothermal technology pushes forward the economics of these projects really make sense.”

The stimulus law provided the industry with up to $400 million in new funding to advance research, development and deployment activities. It also expanded tax credits for new projects to include a 30 percent investment tax credit and a “cash grant” alternative.

Read more

Supreme Court dashes hopes for federal transmission siting

An older transmission power track and power line stands tall against a Kansas sunset north of Topeka, Kansas. Utilities are vying to build a new power system to stretch across the state that would give six times more capacity than the present systems. The upgraded systems will be needed to help fully harness wind power generation.  Another day, another bad Supreme Court move (see “High court unleashes tsunami of corporate cash with Citizens United Ruling“).  First-time guest blogger Richard W. Caperton has the story and analysis in this CAP repost.

The Supreme Court last week decided not to review a lower court ruling on electricity transmission, upholding states’ ability to deny permits for new transmission lines. This will allow states to prevent anyone””either the government or private businesses””from building new transmission lines. The United States needs these transmission lines. They would enable Americans to consume more clean energy by bringing it from wind- and solar-powered plants to homes around the country. And a report released last week by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that we need 20,000 new miles of transmission lines to move carbon-free wind energy from wind turbines to East Coast consumers alone. The United States can’t reap the benefits of clean energy if Americans can’t access it, and these developments reinforce the fact that climate and energy legislation must contain a comprehensive transmission proposal to effectively drive the transition to a clean energy economy.

Read more

“Efficiency initiatives by the utility, including one promoting attic insulation, have saved about 500,000 megawatt-hours of power since 2002″

Four decades ago, when Sid Erwin began his career as an inspector at the Idaho Power Company, a string of new hydroelectric plants was pumping out power faster than locals could buy it. Soon enough, Mr. Erwin recalls, the utility began sending representatives to rural areas, urging farmers to use more electricity when irrigating their crops.

These days, Idaho’s farmers are being paid to stop using power.

Sitting at a cluttered kitchen table in his home, Mr. Erwin “” now a farmer himself “” waved a bill showing that last July he received a credit of more than $700 from Idaho Power for turning off his power-guzzling pumps on some summer afternoons.

“It’s a total turnabout,” says Mr. Erwin, who lives in Bruneau, about 60 miles southeast of here. “I’m almost 70 years old and this has been a lifelong education to me.”

As saving energy becomes a rallying cry for utilities and the government, Idaho Power is in the vanguard. Since 2004, it has been paying farmers like Mr. Erwin to cut power useat crucial times, resulting in drop-offs of as much as 5.6 percent of peak power demand….

Other efficiency initiatives by the utility, including one promoting attic insulation, have saved about 500,000 megawatt-hours of power since 2002, according to the company “” roughly equal to the amount used by 5,000 gadget-filled homes over eight years.

So begins the NYT story, “Why Is a Utility Paying Customers?“  While the world’s richest man has been educating himself on energy and then dissing insulation (!) and efficiency as a core solution to our energy and climate problems, even the reddest of red states is starting to catch on that the cheapest and greenest kilowatt-hour is the one you don’t use.

Efficiency doesn’t require siting and building new power plants  and transmission, it doesn’t require waiting decades for breakthrough technology, it saves huge amounts of money for consumers and the utility, and it is a proven, scalable strategy:

Read more