We are seeing a unique confluence of events put a carbon tax squarely back into the national debate: the debt crisis and fiscal cliff, Hurricane Sandy, and the results of the 2012 election.

Sen. Majority Leader Reid said Wednesday:

“Climate change is an extremely important issue for me and I hope we can address it reasonably. It’s something, as we’ve seen with these storms that are overwhelming our country and the world, we need to do something about it.”

Back in August Reid spoke to Greenwire following one of the most powerful public speeches on climate that any national policymaker has made in years:

Reid said he hopes the Senate will take up a bill to put a price on carbon emissions if Democrats maintain control of the chamber….

Reid now has a much stronger hand. Democrats picked up 2 seats in the Senate. A few months ago Republicans were thought to have a good chance of seizing control of the Senate — now they have undercut their chances of taking back the Senate even in 2014. And newly elected Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) both explicitly campaigned on climate change.

No, Reid can’t do this single-handedly. But President Obama, reelected with the help of a decisive youth vote that rightly puts climate change near the top of the list of their concerns, himself said on election night:

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”

In  the coming days and weeks, Climate Progress will explore the prospects for a carbon tax from all angles. We’ll also explore other policies that could potentially achieve the same kind of reductions. And we’ll try to set the record straight when we think the media doesn’t get it quite right, as with this CNN Money article, “Climate change is back on the table“:

Read more

by Steve Valk

Superstorm Sandy was a huge wake-up call on climate change for America. Many of our nation’s TV meteorologists, however, missed that call, and with it the opportunity to educate the public about the impact global warming has on our weather.

For some unfathomable reason, the majority of folks who deliver weather forecasts to millions of Americans do not accept the science of climate change and won’t bring it up on their telecasts. It isn’t that most meteorologists are climate change skeptics, as Inside Climate News reported earlier this year; just the ones who are on television. They comprise about 10 percent of the membership of the American Meteorological Society, which recently revised its official statement supporting of the scientific consensus on climate change.

What does the AMS say about Sandy and global warming?

While the organization hasn’t released an official statement, AMS Senior Policy Fellow Bob Corell co-authored a piece in Politico this week, saying that “we should consider Sandy — and other recent extreme weather events – an early taste of a climate-changed world, and a grim preview of the even worse to come, particularly if we continue to pump more carbon pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes up into the atmosphere.”

Pretty strong and unequivocal. But it falls on deaf ears where many TV meteorologists are concerned. In Atlanta, here’s how 30-year weatherman Glenn Burns at WSB-TV responded to a viewer’s email when asked about the AMS statement on climate change:

“Thanks for your concern on climate change. We are also in the middle of an extreme sunspot cycle which correlates perfectly with the extreme heat this summer. Not only that, the NWS [National Weather Service] temperature sensors at the airport are not accurate. NASA even called me personally and told me they were 5-6 degrees warmer than surrounding areas. We need to learn how to deal with climate change. Our climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Only the civilizations that adapted to it have survived. That should be our goal.”

Wow.

Read more

by Ron Pernick, via Clean Edge

The election is over and the people have spoken. After months of highly-charged attacks, lively and lackluster debate performances, and never-ending punches and counterpunches, Barack Obama has prevailed as the winner of the 2012 election. It won’t be an easy job. Mr. Obama will need to enable the creation of millions of new jobs, embolden U.S energy, environmental, and national security, and lead our country into a robust economic future – all while dealing with a sharply divided electorate.

Now that the election is over, what steps can the president and new Congress take to ensure our nation’s ongoing clean-energy leadership? Here are five actions for Mr. Obama that, if implemented, we believe would supercharge the U.S.’s clean-tech economy:

1) Open Up Master Limited Partnerships to Renewables and Efficiency

After the energy crisis of the 1970s, Congress created an effective investment structure to support domestic oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects called Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). These tax-advantaged structures now comprise more than $220 billion in assets, and on average return between five and 12 percent annually to their investors. The president should call on Congress, in a bipartisan manner, to open up these same investment tools to renewables as soon as possible. There’s no reason that fossil fuels should get special treatment, and this effective investment structure is well suited to renewables which have their own built-in annuity streams (electricity generation from a solar, wind, or geothermal installation, for example, could provide a regular revenue stream to investors). U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Delaware) has written a bill entitled the MLP Parity Act, which if enacted, could level the playing field and open up critical financing to the renewables sector.

2) Leverage the Nation’s Abundant Natural Gas, Renewables, and Energy Efficiency Resources

The U.S. is blessed with perhaps the most abundant natural gas and renewable sources of any nation on the planet, along with being a global leader in energy efficiency and green building technologies. While the U.S. will continue to use oil and burn coal, the future needs to be built on cleaner, less environmentally destructive, less volatile sources of energy. Based on its unprecedented natural advantage, we believe the U.S. should focus new generation assets on environmentally responsible natural gas, renewables, and energy efficiency-based “negawatts.” To a great extent that’s already been happening, with the majority of new generation assets in 2011 and 2012 coming from new natural gas and wind power plants. The president should further leverage these resources by supporting policies and building bridges between renewables, efficiency, and natural gas interests – and highlighting how these industries can work together to enable true U.S. energy independence and security.

3) Establish a National Renewable Portfolio Standard of 30 Percent by 2030

Read more

After conservatives spent millions to defeat Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester, he still maintained his seat. Enviros say they played an important role.

Just a couple short months ago, the deck was stacked against environmental groups.

Fossil fuel interests were pouring tens of millions of dollars into campaign ads across the country, the coal industry was successfully pushing a “War on Coal” meme to discredit Obama in key swing states, the Republican party had adopted a disciplined messaging platform criticizing federal support of clean energy, and Mitt Romney had assembled an A-list of fossil fuel executives to fuel his campaign.

In the last two months of the campaign alone, groups promoting fossil fuels spent $270 million on television ads to influence the congressional and presidential races.

But in key national races, it didn’t work.

All that money ultimately failed to change the presidency, failed to change the balance of power in Congress, and failed to give Republicans the important coal states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Environmental groups are now taking a victory lap and touting their targeted spending and grassroots campaigning in important races, which they say helped neutralize the vast sums of money dumped into the election by fossil fuel interests.

“We’re all smiling,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, who described the win for Obama and other environmentally-friendly candidates as “big” many times over.

“Big polluters spent unprecedented amounts of big money to spread big lies and they lost big time. Across the country, clean energy champions are the big winners.”

Indeed, environmental advocates won the vast majority of races they focused on.

The League of Conservation Voters, with grassroots help from the activist organization CREDO, rolled out a $3 million campaign to defeat five climate-denying House Republicans dubbed the “Flat Earth Five.” Four out of the five members of Congress — Anne Marie Buerlke (NY), Dan Lungren (CA), Francisco Canseco (TX), and Joe Walsh (IL) — lost their seats.  (Lungren lost by 184 votes but has not conceded). Dan Benishek (MI) was the only person to stay in office.

In the Senate, the results were also very good. Seven of eight candidates supported by environmental groups won their races, thus preventing Republicans from taking the Senate and cutting off the drumbeat of anti-environmental legislation in the House.

Among the 12 “Climate Heroes” promoted by environmentalists, 11 of 12 won their races. The 12th, Washington State climate hawk Jay Inslee, looks poised to win his bid for governor as well.

And in the presidential race, the political victories for Obama were also big. Despite the attack campaign around Obama’s supposed “War on Coal,” he won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, three key coal swing states. Obama also won in Iowa and Colorado, two swing states with large wind industries. Over the summer, the Obama campaign messaged hard on support for the wind tax credit in those battlegrounds after Romney said he wanted support for the industry to expire.

Ultimately, the election doesn’t shift the balance of power on the national level. Nor does it necessarily give climate advocates a mandate for broad action in the second term. But environmental groups say this week’s election shows they can have an impact when they flex their political muscle.

Read more

President Barack Obama hugs Donna Vanzant as he tours damage from Hurricane Sandy. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

by Craig A. Severance, via Energy Economy Online

Barack Obama has won, and now his supporters and detractors alike are hoping America can move forward to tackle our toughest problems.

The Bull in the China Shop. With the devastation of Superstorm Sandy still in the daily news, the re-elected U.S. President now has an opening to address our most serious threat.  He must finally lead Americans to face the truth that extreme climate disruption is already underway  – caused by our excessive use of coal, oil and natural gas. The $50 Billion toll and dozens of lives lost from one storm will only be the beginning if this problem is not addressed.

The very difficult task of weaning ourselves off the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels is the pre-eminent challenge of the 21st Century.  Will future generations suffering from destructive hurricanes, droughts, floods, and wildfires look back kindly on a President who ducks this issue?

With a struggling economy foremost in the public’s mind, however, Mr. Obama would be well-served to find climate solutions that also create jobs.  There is much work to do — rail lines to be built, homes to be insulated — if we just put money into the hands of the true “Job Creators”.

The need to cut tax burdens on workers and small businesses was another rallying cry for many on both sides of the recent election.  The most innovative climate solutions — taxing what we burn instead of what we earn — can accomplish this tax savings goal.

The same old, tired ideas of the Washington Establishment will not work, as they typically pit one group of Americans against another.  If Mr. Obama is to be successful in his second term he would do well to listen to the people, and act boldly.  He must confront his opponents where they live — by garnering support for local issues and local projects, from local citizens.

New grassroots ideas such as those listed below — which are already very popular with the public — can work together to move us “Forward”:

1.  Get Out There and Talk With People. The turning point of the Presidential campaign was when former President Bill Clinton — the “Explainer-in-Chief” — began delivering folksy yet meaty speeches treating Americans as adults who could understand the issues if we just talk about it.  Keep it up!   Get out there in every Congressional District — even if you have to hire Bill Clinton to do it.  On climate, get nationally recognized climate scientists — together with Republicans of good conscience who are bucking their Party on this issue —  to hold local meetings describing the droughts, extreme storms, wildfires, and floods likely in each area.  When these events actually happen, the public will demand Congressional action.

2.  Cut Taxes on Work and Small Business Profits. Originally promoted by Tea Party and other activists, the idea of taxing consumption instead of earnings just keeps gaining traction.  It is now championed by Ralph Nader under the slogan “Tax What We Burn, Not What We Earn”.  In its most well-crafted form, it would reward a good thing — hard work — and tax only bad things (pollution, and depletion of critical resources).  Barack Obama himself enacted a Payroll Tax Holiday as the biggest tax break for the middle class.  Instead of now ending the Payroll Tax break, if we are to respond to the needs of a broad spectrum of Americans for a tax cut, we should expand it and replace the lost revenues with taxes on consumption and pollutants.

3.  Slash Polluter Welfare Payments. Hundreds of billions of dollars per year are being paid by everyone, for the activities of a few. This is the welfare paid by all, to those whose activities are subsidized.  Examples include polluters whose burning causes extreme climate disruption, Wall Street high-frequency traders whose speculative activity has destabilized markets and is discouraging small investors, oil companies who profit from U.S. military activities in the Middle East, and trucking companies who pay far less than the actual road damage caused by heavy trucks.  ”Connect the Dots” — link fees and taxes to the actual costs imposed — and we can cut the Deficit and replace lost revenues from cutting payroll and business taxes.

Read more

by Jeremy Symons

Voters are sending many conservation leaders — new faces and veterans — to Washington, after largely rejecting candidates who told voters that we have gone too far in protecting our environment. When the new Congress convenes in January, however, power will once again be divided between a Republican House and a Democratic President and Senate. So what does it mean for the environment and green politics?

The full story of the 2012 election for conservation has yet to be written. These elections have opened a window of opportunity to realign the politics of the environment. As GOP leaders look for ways to broaden their appeal, they should start by returning to the party’s Teddy Roosevelt conservation roots and offering a vision of Republican environmental leadership that connects with the strong environmental values of voters.

Never before has the hill been so steep toward this goal. This election featured GOP candidates who took a sharp departure from the Republican Party’s strong history of leading fights for stewardship of America’s lands, wildlife, clean air and clean water. During his convention speech, Governor Romney even mocked President Obama on climate change. Many of these candidates are heading home rather than to Washington.

Republican conservationists haven’t disappeared, but they have been marginalized and are not sufficiently represented within the party structure. Outside Washington, conservation values among many Republicans are strong:

• According to a landmark 2011 study of American public opinions by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 54 percent of Republicans agree that “this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”
• A more recent survey by National Wildlife Federation found that Republican hunters and anglers strongly support public lands and clean water protections, and 53 percent of GOP sportsmen believe we have a “moral responsibility” to deal with global warming.

Who today is speaking to conservation Republicans who are such a large share of the Republican ranks? And how does the GOP plan to grow in the future? As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said before the polls closed on Election Day: “If we lose this election there is only one explanation — demographics.”

Read more

Investors wasted no time running from what had been a nice little three-month rally in coal stocks ahead of the 2012 presidential election. [Market Watch]

US President Barack Obama has hinted he will make another push to fight climate change after cruising to a new term, but his room for maneuver will be limited even with a new focus after megastorm Sandy. [AFP]

Barack Obama’s invocation of “the destructive power of a warming planet” in his victory speech has stoked expectation that he will act on climate change in his second term. Environmental campaigners are already mobilising to hold the president to that promise. [Guardian]

President Obama’s reelection, along with key wins by Senate Democrats, ensures that the federal government will press ahead with efforts to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency and to curb greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. [Washington Post]

For all the punditry about a coming Republican civil war, it’s not clear that the party really wants to change in any serious way — or that it could change if it wanted to. [Time]

Bill McKibben kicked off a national campaign Wednesday night at Benaroya Hall that seeks to demonize the oil and coal industries, and those who profit from them. [Seattle Times]

Japan is sidestepping multilateral efforts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, working with Indonesia and other Asian countries on a bilateral basis to tackle climate change. [Wall Street Journal]

The impact of climate change on key food crops in Africa and South Asia may be much worse than previously estimated — with reductions of up to 40 percent by the 2080s — according to a study, which synthesised results from related studies published over the last 20 years. [AlertNet]

The collapse of sardine fisheries in the southern Caribbean during the past decade may have been driven by global climate change, according to a study. [Guardian]