A large majority of Americans continue to understand that global warming is real.  In fact, warming of the climate system in recent decades is “unequivocal,” according to comprehensive analysis of observations around the globe by the world’s leading climate scientists.

Most of the decline in understanding seen in recent polls comes from conservatives and conservative-leaning independents, who are incessantly hammered with the myth of “global cooling” in the conservative and mainstream media.

And, in a rather unfortunate coincidence, we’ve seen below average temperatures in parts of the United States over the last two years.  That’s particularly true during this uber-warm winter.

Read more

Details of the comprehensive green economy legislation being negotiated by a bipartisan trio of senators are leaking out, as draft language nears completion. In a meeting yesterday with a coalition of industry lobbyists, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) unveiled an eight-page draft outline for their bill. They are attempting to mirror the House’s bipartisan vote for the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (H.R. 2454) last summer to achieve President Barack Obama’s stated goal of comprehensive clean energy reform to restore the American economy. The overall structure of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft, as reported by E&E News, shows its emphasis on a sectoral approach to fighting climate change:

Overall, the bill will include eight titles: Refining, America’s Farmers, Consumer Refunds, Clean Energy Innovation, Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Energy Independence. And it will set up new nationwide standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as ideas on carbon market regulation crafted by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

The bipartisan trio has announced they are drawing some ideas from the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a framework for climate policy that has gained praise from the oil industry, AARP, and some prominent climate activists. The CLEAR Act’s cap and trade program is designed to resemble a carbon tax by putting strong restrictions on the carbon market, with the bulk of the revenues going into equal consumer rebates (“cap and dividend”). The size of the market is limited not by offsets but by very weak caps and a low ceiling price.

From the details that have been released by the members of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce working group of top polluter lobbyists who met with the legislators yesterday, it appears that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft is consistent with President Obama’s principles and similar in its policy aims to the Waxman-Markey ACES Act.

Further information will be required to determine if the legislative package will allow the United States to join an international solution to global warming. The chances of passing this legislation in an election year depend on whether enough political pundits will believe, as Kerry and Graham do, that their approach is the right political response to the headline-making shocks of rising gas prices, faltering economic competitiveness, and increasing climate instability.

The following table compares key elements of Obama’s campaign promises from 2007 and 2008, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act as passed by the House of Representatives, and the rumored elements of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft outline:

Provision	Obama Proposal	Waxman-Markey	Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Rumor
Overall Structure	Economy-wide cap and trade, plus renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards and clean energy investment	Utility, industry, and petroleum sector cap and trade starting in 2012, plus renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards and clean energy investment	Utility (2012) and industry (2016) cap and trade with linked fuel carbon fee, plus renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards and consumer rebates
Emissions Targets	15% below 2005 (at 1990 levels) by 2020, 80% below 2005 (77% below 1990) by 2050	Capped Sectors: 17% below 2005 (3% below 1990) by 2020, 80% below 2005 by 2050 Overall economy goal: 20% below 2005 (7% below 1990) by 2020, 80% below 2005 by 2050	Capped Sectors: 17% below 2005 by 2020, 80% below 2005 by 2050
Scientific Review	Not discussed	Presidential plan in 2015 and every four years thereafter	TBA
Traditional Coal Plants	“Standards that ban new traditional coal facilities” if necessary, and “cap on carbon will make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities”	Price on carbon mitigated by free allocations based 50% on historical emissions; Clean Air Act performance standards in 2016	TBA
Green Economy Investment	$150 billion over ten years, including workforce training, plug-in hybrids, renewable electricity, advanced biofuels, advanced coal technology, nuclear power, and smart grid	Approximately $100 billion over ten years, including workforce training, plug-in hybrids, renewable electricity, advanced biofuels, advanced coal technology, nuclear power, and smart grid	Support for nuclear, advanced coal, and renewables TBA
Permit Allocation	Full auction	Allocations based on historical emissions and energy production with 20% auction at start, phasing to 70% auction by 2030	Allocations TBA
Renewable & Efficiency Standards	25% renewable electricity by 2025, 100% new building efficiency by 2030, phase out traditional incandescents by 2014	15% renewable electricity + 5% efficiency by 2020, 75% new building efficiency by 2030, appliance and lighting efficiency standards	Standards TBA; if based on Bingaman energy bill, weaker than projected business-as-usual
Consumer Protection	LIHEAP, low-income weatherization grants, a “dedicated fund to assist low-income Americans,” plus Making Work Pay tax cut	Over first ten years, 45% (approx. $30 billion) of allocated permits and auction revenues dedicated to consumer protection through rebates and efficiency measures, emphasizing low-income consumers	Universal rebate checks from 50% of auction revenues
Market Regulation	Increased regulation of energy markets	FERC and CFTC regulation, no over-the-counter derivatives trading, increased regulation of energy markets	Cantwell-Collins language prohibits derivatives, limits permit auction to covered emitters
Agriculture and Deforestation	Domestic and international incentives to sequester carbon and reduce deforestation, support for biofuels	Pool of offsets plus supplemental fund of 5% of permits for domestic and international incentives to sequester carbon and reduce deforestation, support for biofuels	Agriculture title TBA; Sen. Kerry supports $3 billion annually in international climate aid
Deficit Reduction	Not discussed	10% of permits auctioned (approx. $8 billion) over first ten years for deficit reduction	TBA
Fuels and Transportation	Increase biofuels to 60 million gallons by 2030, low-carbon fuel standard of 10% by 2010, 1 million plug‐in hybrid cars by 2025, raise fuel economy standards, smart growth funding, end oil subsidies, promote natural gas drilling, enhanced oil recovery	Smart growth funding, plug-in hybrids, raise fuel economy standards	Promote offshore and natural gas drilling, enhanced oil recovery, fuel fee for transportation funding
Cost Containment	International offsets	Offset pool, banking and borrowing flexibility, soft price collar using permit reserve auction at $28 per ton going to 60% above three-year-average market price	“Hard” price collar between $10 and $30 per ton, with an increase at “fixed rate” TBA, plus permit reserve auction, offsets TBA
Clean Air Act And States	Not discussed	Only polluters above 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, regional cap and trade suspended until 2017, EPA to set stationary source performance standards in 2016, some Clean Air Act provisions excluded	Only polluters above 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, regional cap and trade pre-empted, some Clean Air Act provisions excluded
International Competitiveness	Tax incentives for domestic auto industry	Free allowances for trade-exposed industries, 2020 carbon tariff on imports	Carbon tariff on imports
References: Barack Obama, 2007; Barack Obama, 8/3/08; Pew Center, 6/26/09; CQ, 3/18/10; E&E News, 3/17/10.

There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us.

That’s UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot.  I don’t agree with everything he says — and I don’t think the primary goal should be to persuade the unpersuadable.

But I am trying to bring you a variety of views on this central problem of climate science messaging, and this is a pretty good piece, which I excerpt below:

Read more

A new report finds that comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation is needed to protect Americans from oil shock. America’s exposure to oil spikes acts as a crippling do-nothing energy tax. In a white paper prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), David Gardiner and Associates explore the vulnerability of the United States to price spikes in the oil market, such as the one in 2008 that drove the average cost of gasoline above four dollars, if it happened now, in the midst of a recession. The report finds that Mississippi, Montana, Louisiana, and Oklahoma residents are most vulnerable to a new price shock, as about 10 percent of the average driver’s income would be spent on gasoline:

If prices spiked again, Connecticut and New York drivers’ spending on gasoline would go up moderately, to around 4.3 percent; Mississippi drivers, on the other hand, could see their spending on gasoline skyrocket to more than 11 percent.

MAP OF U.S. OIL VULNERABILITY IF PRICES SPIKED AGAIN

Unfortunately for their citizens, these most vulnerable states are largely represented by senators with deep ties to the oil industry who dismiss the threat of global warming: Republicans Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Republicans Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican David Vitter of Louisiana. Even the Democratic senators of Montana, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, have merely indicated openness to capping our dependence on oil and confronting the climate threat.

A bright spot comes for the residents of the fifth most vulnerable state, South Carolina, where Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is working on comprehensive climate legislation with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Graham’s work in building the green economy is earning praise from the Christian Coalition and local veterans, both of whom recognize the dangers of oil addiction to our nation.

“America’s dependence on oil is problematic in several ways,” the authors write:

– The United States has less than 2 percent of the world’s oil supplies but is responsible for about a quarter of the world’s oil consumption. We currently import almost two-thirds of our crude oil supply from foreign countries, and more and more of the world’s future supply will come from regions that are either politically unstable or unfriendly to U.S. interests.

– Our dependence on unstable oil supplies threatens our national economy, particularly since about 96 percent of our transportation system is reliant on oil.

– Oil consumption is a leading contributor to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause global warming. In the United States, the oil-based transportation system is responsible for roughly one-third of our global warming pollution.

To respond to these combined threats from oil vulnerability, the report concludes that Congress must:

– Pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions, helps us break our oil addiction, and invests in creating millions of clean energy jobs here in the United States.

– Fundamentally reform federal transportation policy to support smart, public transportation-oriented development; assist states and regions in saving oil; and provide ample funding for energy-efficient transportation alternatives including rail and bus lines, bike paths, sidewalks, and other alternatives to driving.

Goodell: “Is this conference about advancing the science and governance of geoengineering or about advancing and raising the profile of the Climate Response Fund?”

[UPDATE:  Sometimes blog posts have pretty immediate impacts -- see here.]

I am not comfortable with the the idea that a meeting set up to create guidelines governing geoengineering field tests might be used to help raise funds for geoengineering field tests, without the informed consent of meeting participants. I am also concerned with possible conflicts of interest related to the profit motive.

That’s from an e-mail that climatologist and geo-engineering expert Ken Caldeira sent me this week.

I had heard last week that Caldeira was not going to the star-studded “Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies” — the “Woodstock” of geo-engineering.  I asked him why.  I reprint his full email below, along with concerns raised to me by geo-engineering expert David Keith.

Frankly, I think all of the conference attendees (and they include some of the biggest names in climate, full list here) need to ask themselves whether they are helping to legitimize — and thereby ultimately helping to raise funds for — a nonprofit that will not unequivocally forswear funding geo-engineering experiments, a nonprofit that is closely tied to the financing efforts of a for-profit company that has already started pursuing dubious geo-engineering schemes.

Read more

Report says China is squeezing U.S. firms out of its massive wind-power market

U.S. companies are getting squeezed out of the big Chinese wind-power market even as Dallas investors are bringing Chinese firms here via a big wind farm in Texas, according to a new industry report.

“They’ve used every measure you could possibly think of to enhance production of renewable energy equipment in China,” said report author Alan Wolff of the trade law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.

Read more

In a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) outlined his policy priorities for the comprehensive climate legislation Sen. Kerry is authoring with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Levin’s letter says it highlights “some of the points I made at the March 2 meeting on climate legislation”:

– Eliminate California waiver for automotive emissions

– Pre-empt EPA from Clean Air Act regulation of stationary sources

– Establish a “realistic and firm” price collar on the carbon market

– Establish a “delay of at least 10 years in regulation of industrial sources”

– Allocate “sufficient” allowances for industrial sources

– Establish trade provisions “to assure a level playing field”

– Use a “100% emissions-based distribution formula” for permits to electricity generation

As a package, Levin’s requests would limit investment in a clean energy economy, threatening the development of millions of new jobs. There are better ways to protect the hard-hit citizens of Michigan than by keeping them tethered to the post-whale-oil economy.

Although Levin’s language is unclear, the “delay of at least 10 years in regulation of industrial sources” appears to refer to individual site performance standards, not a decade-long delay in including industrial polluters under a market-based cap.

Giving allowances away to polluters for free based on their historic emissions, or “grandfathering,” says Environment America, “rewards owners of highly polluting facilities and discourages innovation.” President Obama has favored a 100% auction of pollution permits to help American families and spur clean energy innovation, a feature of the Cantwell-Collins climate bill. Europe’s grandfathered cap-and-trade system generated $100 billion in windfall profits before they moved to an auctioned-credit system.

Several progressive and environmental organizations have made the preservation of existing Clean Air Act authority a top priority.

Sen. Levin’s understandable effort to protect existing, high-pollution electricity production in his region would leave Michigan woefully behind the clean-energy economy in other states, unable to catch up in the innovation race.

Full text of the letter: Read more

Conservatives have been doing their best to torpedo the movement toward clean energy by hyping controversies about the science behind global warming. But whatever effect these controversies have had on the public they do not appear to have undermined support for action on the clean energy front, as polling expert and CAP Senior Fellow Ruy Teixeira explains.

Read more

But continue to oppose clean energy future — and diss natural gas!

The natural gas lobby is fighting coal, whose lobbyists “continue to stress the economic advantages of the fossil fuel.”  And the coal companies are trashing natural gas in advertisements as having “higher and more volatile prices” (click here).

But even as they lobby hard to prevent passage of comprehensive clean energy jobs and climate legislation, some oil and coal companies are making investments to prepare themselves for a coming clean energy, low carbon future.  Purchasing natural gas, they think, may be the way out.  Guest blogger, Sarah Collins, an intern with CAP’s Energy Opportunity team, has the story:

Read more