by Richard W. Caperton

If you had told me on Tuesday morning that I was about to spend my day at a standing room only event that had nothing to do with the election, I would’ve said, “But, I’m not planning to go to a David Petraeus news conference!”  Ah, but it turns out that there are other topics that bring out the masses.  I did, in fact, spend the day at a standing room only event that had nothing to do with the election.

The topic?  Carbon taxes, of course.

Yesterday, the American Enterprise Institute hosted a conference to talk about anything and everything related to the economics of carbon taxes.  Normally, a full-day conference with more than a dozen speakers on a tax issue in DC will be lucky to get more than a few dozen attendees, even with a free lunch.  Carbon taxes, though, are different.  The enthusiasm for this issue is such that there were over 200 attendees, many of whom stood for half the day.

What makes carbon taxes different? Simply put, people across the political spectrum now know that putting a price on carbon is an indispensable tool for dealing with our climate and budget problems, and that a carbon tax is the most politically viable path forward.  This dynamic has created an exciting amount of momentum that now needs to be turned into policy.

Not only is the political situation ripe for a carbon tax, but yesterday’s AEI conference demonstrated that the thought leadership is ripe as well.  That’s not to say that there’s agreement on the best way to design a carbon tax; the ultimate design will likely be about political decisions as much as policy ones.  But, the implications of different policy choices are largely known, which was the focus of the conference.

The benefits of a carbon tax would be tremendous.  According to the Brookings Institution’s William Gale, the amount of money a carbon tax could raise is roughly comparable to the size of the Bush tax cuts, indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation, or the budget sequester that’s part of the upcoming fiscal cliff.  Instituting a carbon tax would make it much easier to deal with our country’s budget crisis, because it would give us another tool for solving the problem.  And, a carbon tax can get significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.  Allen Fawcett presented findings from the Energy Modeling Forum that show a multitude of technology development scenarios that get to 50 percent reductions in greenhouse gases with a carbon tax.

Broadly speaking, there are two questions about designing a carbon tax: how to collect the money, and what to do with the money?  Neither of these is simple, and virtually every option involves tradeoffs.

Read more

In four of the swing states President Obama swept, voters said energy was one of their top considerations in casting their ballot, according to a post-election poll released by the American Council on Renewable Energy and Advanced Energy Economy Ohio Institute.

These voters also indicated they were supportive of candidates advocating for clean energy (Iowa: 80%, Colorado: 75%, Virginia: 72%, Ohio: 70%).

But these states and others saw heavy outside spending in presidential and Senate races, particularly on energy issues. In many cases, myths promoted in polluter-funded ads about the so-called necessity of the Keystone XL pipeline, the “war on coal,” anti-climate legislation, and anti-clean energy ended up losing. Despite $270 million in presidential, Senate, and House ads financed by polluter-connected groups — $31 million specifically on energy issues — clean energy candidates won in races down the ballot.

Energy was far from the only issue to play a role in election outcomes, but groups piled millions of dollars into ads to push polluter issues as a top priority. And where energy issues dominated in presidential and Senate races, voters rejected polluter claims, electing the candidates backing clean energy:

KEYSTONE XL: Back in January, the American Petroleum Institute promised to make the pipeline an issue that would have “huge political consequences” for opponents. But looking at races where it came up, often backed by heavy spending, the issue did not break through to voters. Not one Senator who voted to defeat Keystone XL construction in March 2012 lost his or her race. Connie Mack, for instance, repeatedly attacked Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) over his Keystone XL opposition, and lost by a wide margin.

In addition to candidate stump speeches, the Keystone XL pipeline appeared in $1.8 million ads bought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the Virginia and New Mexico Senate races since September, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG data.

CAP AND TRADE: Of the $5.7 million of ads running against Virginia’s Tim Kaine since September by outside groups, four separate ads amounting to $2 million mention cap and trade, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG data. Ads mentioning cap and trade also aired in the Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia races.

Read more

Slate Magazine Staff Writer Will Oremus summed up how a lot of folks in the climate advocacy community were likely feeling this afternoon after Obama’s first post-election press conference, in which he was asked about climate change.

There’s been a lot of talk in Washington in recent weeks about the possibility of a carbon tax proposal from Congress or even the White House. Along with the fact that the Obama Administration says it is not planning such a proposal, Obama’s response in today’s press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn’t very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like.

Here’s the full New York Times transcript of the President’s comments on climate change from this afternoon:

Read more

Many weather reporting outlets are still hesitant to discuss connections between intensifying extreme weather events and global warming. But one 24-hour station is not. The “Dirty Weather Report,” the latest project from Al Gore and the team at the Climate Reality Project, will air tonight and take viewers around the world on a 24-hour trip to examine how humans are warming the planet and “dirtying” the weather.

The day-long event comes as climate change emerges as a more serious political topic in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

The streaming live program of “24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report” airs at 8pm EST tonight through 8pm EST Thursday. You can watch it here.

by Paulina Essunger, via 350.org

President Obama is set to do his first post-election press conference this afternoon. This is the perfect chance to remind him of what he said on election night:

We’ve got some work to do, then.  To make sure we’re on the same page, let’s clear up some of the question marks that have accumulated over the past few days and years.

1. Mr. President, how will you help mobilize the required transformation of our transportation infrastructure to help resolve our health, healthcare, jobs, climate, social justice, infrastructure, climate adaptation, fossil fuel dependency, and more, crises?

2. In order to have a good chance (80%) of staying below the so-called “2 degree target”, cumulative global CO2 emissions 2000-2049 must be less than 890 GtCO2. Roughly how much of this “CO2 budget” can be used by the US and why? What factors determine the answer? What scientific questions affect these factors? UPDATE (Nov 10, 2012): How would a revision of the best estimate of the conventional equilibrium climate sensitivity from 3°C to 4°C (per doubling of CO2) affect your answers? UPDATE (Nov 12, 2012): The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2012 asserts that a 50% chance of staying below the 2 degree target requires leaving at least two-thirds of current proven reserves in the ground by 2050 (barring wide-scale successful deployment of carbon capture and sequestration). UPDATE (Nov 13, 2012): What are the global and US carbon budgets for an 80% chance of staying below a 1.5 °C increase in global average temperature, from the pre-industrial level (i.e., for meeting a 1.5 degree target, rather than the “2 degree target”)?

3. How much of that U.S, cumulative carbon budget have we already spent since 2000 (expressed as fraction or percentage of our total share)?

4. In 2011, the IEA estimated that by 2017, the global energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario by 2035 [the scenario the IEA estimates gives a 50% chance of not exceeding the “2 degree target”].  What is the analogous calculation for the US, more specifically, for (i) our share of the carbon budget and (ii) our infrastructure lock-in, but for (iii) an 80% chance of not exceeding the 2 degree target?

5. We’ve all seen news about US carbon dioxide emissions going down a bit in some of the past few years. Why have you (apparently) discontinued the GHG (as opposed to carbon dioxide) report: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ ? Do we have reliable estimates of methane releases and leaks in conjunction with current natural gas extraction and transport; if so, what are these estimates?

6. Secretary Chu has said that “[nuclear energy] is clean in the sense that I think the waste issue is a solvable issue” (at ca 32 minutes). What is your definition, on a lifecycle basis, of “clean energy” and why? How does that correspond to the multiple uses of the term by the administration and the campaign?

7. Is the following a coherent characterization of clean energy?

Read more

by Tom Kenworthy

The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed its final environmental review of the amount of federal land designated for research and development of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

The final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) published late last week would make almost 700,000 acres in the three states available for research and development of oil shale, and another 130,000 acres in Utah available for potential leasing and development of tar sands.

That is a significant reduction from actions taken in the final days of the Bush administration that would have expedited commercial development for oil shale on nearly 2 million acres in the three states. But it is more expansive than the Obama administration’s draft environmental review completed last February, which allocated about 462,000 acres for oil shale and 91,000 acres for tar sands.

Sometimes confused with shale oil – actual crude oil trapped in sedimentary rock – oil shale is a rock that contains kerogen, an organic material produces hydrocarbons when heated at high temperatures. Tar sands are sedimentary deposits that contain bitumen, a hydrocarbon that can be refined into oil. They are one of the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive fossil fuels.

The BLM’s plan, which Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said was a more “measured” approach to providing land for these resources, excludes environmentally sensitive areas, including those with wilderness characteristics and habitat for sage grouse.

The BLM directive would first open lands for what are known as research, demonstration and development leases and set certain requirements before they could become full commercial development leases.

David Abelson, who works on oil shale issues for Western Resource Advocates, told E&E the decision is “mixed” – requiring research before commercial development, but still opening vast tracts of federal lands for potential development.

And if one takes the International Energy Agency’s new World Energy Outlook seriously, developing these extremely dirty resources at all is a poor use of land. According to the IEA, we need to keep two thirds of fossil fuel resources in the ground in order to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees C.

The local environmental impact is also substantial. Oil shale is a longstanding pipe dream of western energy developers, who despite considerable effort, have yet to prove it is commercially viable. According to a Government Accounting Office study and other reports, production could severely stress western water supplies already strained by population growth and climate change. In addition, a recent report by Western Resource Advocates predicts that development of oil shale would exacerbate air pollution problems in the West.

Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund

by RL Miller

Like her formal name Cassandra, Hurricane Sandy brought to American consciousness what science has been yelling at us for years: climate change is real, it’s happening now, and it’s likely worse than models predict. The global economy fiddles away $500 billion each year — the cost of inaction on climate.

The dirty hippies at Pricewaterhouse Cooper warn that the previous goal of two degrees Celsius is virtually unattainable (pdf). Yet consensus for climate action in the United States in President Obama’s second term seems limited to Environmental Protection Agency actions nibbling around the edges of what power plants can burn.

There’s a better solution: keep the coal in the ground.

It’s time for a moratorium on Powder River Basin coal.

The Powder River Basin in eastern Wyoming supplies coal to the Midwest and, if the coal barons have their way, the Far East. The American coal market is declining, which Bob Murray blames on President Obama but those in the reality-based community attribute, mostly, to cheap natural gas.  Thus, the coal barons are eyeing Asian markets through Washington and Oregon, but encountering stiff resistance from Pacific Northwest folk concerned about everything from longer waits at traffic signals to gigatons of carbon changing our climate.

by Emily Reyna, via Environmental Defense Fund

While millions of Americans recover from the Sandy-Nor’easter extreme weather event combo, and even as President Obama’s remarks about action against a “warming planet” linger, all eyes will be on California this coming Wednesday. This is when the next big event in the climate change conversation will take place.

Between 10am and 1pm pacific time on November 14th, California will conduct the state’s first ever cap-and-trade auction for climate change pollution.  This landmark event will kick off the second largest carbon market in the world, the European Union being the first. Entities covered in the program include utilities, oil refineries, oil producers, and large manufactures, though other individuals and organizations can also participate to buy carbon allowances if they meet the state’s rigorous requirements.  A practice run was held back in August, and all systems are ready to go. More information about the nuts and bolts of the auction can be read here.

In anticipation of this historic occasion, here are four things to keep in mind:

1.  This is the best designed cap-and-trade program in the world
California has the good fortune of learning from predecessor cap-and-trade programs like the European Union Emissions Trading Platform, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the Acid Rain Program, just to name a few. Key elements of California’s program include giving free allowances to industry in the beginning years to help with transition; letting entities bank allowances for future use; and establishing an allowance reserve in case prices exceed a certain value. All help keep carbon prices more stable and make for a well-functioning market.

2.  A price will be established for carbon, but that will vary as the program evolves
The California program will include auctions four times a year through 2020 – 32 more times after November 2012.  As such, the number of participants, the settlement price and other results of the first auction may not necessarily predict the activity of future auctions. Over time, the market will change and both prices and participation will fluctuate as the cap reduces and businesses decide how best to participate.

3. Money from the auctions will be used to invest in California’s clean energy future
Proceeds from the auction must be invested in ways that further the goals of the law – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).  Though these investments are scheduled to start in the next fiscal year, a specific investment plan is still underway and is being guided by two bills passed at the end of California’s legislative session. Likely project categories include renewable energy, energy efficiency, advanced vehicles, and natural resource conservation. In addition, 25% of proceeds must be used in ways that benefit disadvantaged communities. These investments will boost clean tech in California, improve air quality, and create jobs.

4. California’s leadership will serve as a launch pad for other programs
California is the ninth largest economy on the planet, and the world is watching. No state or country can stop climate change alone, but California’s environmental policies have a history of success and replication, including clean car, clean fuel and energy efficiency standards that have saved consumers across the US hundreds of billions of dollars in avoided energy purchases.  If the past is any indicator, California’s rich history of leading the nation on responses to critical environmental problems, while delivering wide ranging benefits, means the US is on the brink of something special.

A public notice of the auction results will be released on Monday, November 19, 2012 and will be posted to both the Air Resources Board and auction website.

Emily Reyna is Senior Manager of Strategic Partnerships and Alliances for the Climate & Air Program at the Environmental Defense Fund. This piece was originally published at EDF and was reprinted with permission.

Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2011 rose 2.5 percent to 34 billion tonnes, a new record, Germany’s renewable energy institute said on Tuesday. The IWR, which advises German ministries, cited recovered industrial activity after the end of the global economic crisis of recent years. [Reuters]

TV Media Excluding MSNBC Covered Biden’s Smile Nearly Twice As Much As Climate Change. Since August 1, the major cable and broadcast networks have spent just over three and a half hours discussing climate change in the context of the presidential election. [Media Matters For America]

California’s fledging market-based system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes its formal debut on Wednesday with its auction of state-issued pollution allowances. [New York Times]

The ball is now in the court of Republicans if the Obama administration is to consider including a carbon tax as part of fiscal reform efforts, a U.S. Treasury official said on Tuesday. [Reuters]

Sorry to see 100-watt bulbs disappear from stores because they were energy hogs? You can now get LED bulbs that roughly match the 100-watters for size and brightness, but use far less energy. [Associated Press]

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk would rather see the government place a tax on carbon emissions than increase tax credits for buyers of electric vehicles, he said last night. [Business Insider]

The International Energy Agency Tuesday cut its forecast for oil demand during the last quarter of this year and said the state of the global economy will limit consumption expansion in 2013. [Wall Street Journal]

Volcanic heat from Iceland could generate electricity to power British homes within a decade, according to experts. The geothermal energy would be piped to Britain through the world’s longest seabed power cable but would be no more expensive than the next generation of nuclear energy. [The Telegraph]

Centralised France may lack the clout at local government level to ease its new shift to greener energy, contrasting with the regional and grass-roots power that helped push through the rise of renewables in Germany. [Reuters]