In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Commerce Department has issued a preliminary decision to apply tariffs to Chinese-made solar modules being imported into the U.S. The tariffs range from 31 percent to 250 percent.

The preliminary tariffs were issued after a lengthy investigation by the Commerce Department into whether Chinese companies are “dumping” solar panels into the U.S. market below cost. These tariffs follow a March decision to issue small countervailing duties on Chinese module producers that are getting illegal domestic subsidies, according to Commerce.

Today’s issued tariffs are as follows: Trina, 31.14 percent; Suntech, 31.22 percent; and 31.18 percent for all other Chinese producers that participated in the investigation. For companies that did not participate, Commerce has slapped a massive preliminary tariff of 249.96 percent.

The combination of these new tariffs and the countervailing duties will add substantial cost to imported Chinese solar panels. With panel prices hovering in the $1 per watt range, it could add around 30 cents to each panel for leading producers, and vastly more for producers that didn’t get involved in Commerce’s investigation.

These are preliminary fines and can be negotiated and changed before Commerce makes a final decision. The solar industry’s trade group, the Solar Energy Industries Association, has called on the U.S. and Chinese governments to negotiate a settlement — potentially resulting in more moderate tariffs:

“The solar industry calls upon the U.S. and Chinese governments to immediately work together towards a mutually-satisfactory resolution of the growing trade conflict within the solar industry.  While trade remedy proceedings are basic principles of the rules-based global trading system, so too are collaboration and negotiations.

“Importantly, disputes within one segment of the industry affect the entire solar supply chain–and these broad implications must be recognized.  In addition, the U.S. solar manufacturing base goes well beyond solar cell and module production and includes billions of dollars of recent investments into the production of polysilicon, polymers, and solar manufacturing equipment, products which are largely destined for export.  If the U.S.-China solar trade disputes continue to escalate, it will jeopardize these U.S. investments.

“Given these broader implications, it is imperative that the U.S., China, and other players in the dynamic global marketplace work constructively to avert or resolve trade disputes that will ultimately hurt consumers and businesses throughout the solar value chain.”

The solar industry has been on edge since last October, when the manufacturer SolarWorld and six other anonymous companies issued a complaint about illegal trade practices. They argued that China’s subsidies were allowing companies to dump panels below cost, thus driving U.S.-based manufacturers out of business.

However, downstream developers have enjoyed falling panel prices — a factor that has allowed the industry to expand 109% in 2011. A group of solar companies known as the Coalition for American Solar Energy has been staunchly opposed to tariffs, saying they’ll dramatically drive up the cost of solar installations in the U.S.

by Richard W. Caperton

Do anti-clean energy senators have any idea what Americans want?  If this morning’s hearing on the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 is any guide, they don’t.  The truth is that Americans support a clean energy target for this country.  Senators should listen to the American public and pass this bill.

Let’s start at the beginning.  In her opening remarks, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) asked, “To me, the biggest question … is whether American’s really want a CES?”

If that’s the biggest question, then it’s time for the Senate to pass the CES Act, because the American people want more clean energy.

According to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans think that developing clean energy sources should be a bigger priority than expanding oil and coal production.  This is exactly what a CES would do.  The Energy Information Administration testified today that the Clean Energy Standard Act would lead to increased electricity generation from all low-carbon sources of power including renewables, nuclear, and natural gas.  While the exact mix of those resources is impossible to predict, wind and solar power increase dramatically in every scenario the EIA has analyzed.

That wasn’t the end of Murkowski’s misunderstanding of what the American people want.  She went on to say to the witnesses, “I think this is where the consuming public is coming from: If this is going to save me money, let’s talk about it; if it’s not, let’s not talk about it.”

In fact, that’s not where the consuming public is coming from.  Researchers from Harvard and Yale have found that Americans would be willing to pay an extra $162 per year to get 80 percent of their electricity from clean sources.  Conveniently, that’s exactly what the CES would do, so we know that Senator Murkowski’s presumption about what the public wants is wrong.  It’s also important to remember that while the EIA predicts small electricity rate increases from the CES, CAP’s analysis of state renewable energy standards shows that there’s no evidence that this policies increase rates.

Unfortunately, Senator Murkowski’s thinking is stopping the Senate from passing this common sense legislation that would drive clean our air, help prevent catastrophic climate change, and drive investment that can reinvigorate our economy.

Some senators are siding with the American people, though.  Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who originally introduced this proposal and is leading the fight for a CES, understands why this bill is critical.  His opening statement is a welcome contrast to Murkowski’s:

Read more

Support Science & Get These Cool Items & More

By Scott Mandia via his blog

Help the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) raise money to cover the costs of Dr. Mann’s legal defense as well as other scientists who face similar challenges. To help raise money and reward those that contribute, we have rounded up some cool designs and gifts. CSLDF thanks Nicole Martinez and Lunchbreathwho were kind enough to donate their designs for this fundraiser.

$25 gets you one of our t-shirts. They will be delivered a couple weeks after the fundraiser is over. We will check in with you about which design you want and what size.

$50 gets two of the t-shirts.

$75 gets all three of the t-shirts and our true gratitude.

$150 gets you all three of the t-shirts and a copy of Climate Change: Picturing the Science signed by Joshua Wolfe (www.picturingclimatechange.com)

$300 gets you a hockey stick signed by Mike Mann.

$1000 gets you a 16×20 signed silver gelatin print by Joshua Wolfe.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO GET THESE COOL ITEMS PLEASE VISIT:

http://www.rockethub.com/projects/6884-help-cover-mike-mann-s-legal-bills

* A portion of your donation may be tax deductible. People interested in tax deductible donations should contact CSLDF directly at josh@climatesciencedefensefund.org

–  Scott Mandia is a meteorology professor at Suffolk County Community College who has been teaching meteorology and paleoclimatology courses for 25 years. He and Joshua Wolfe co-founded the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

Make your voice heard by clicking HERE to submit a favorable comment to the EPA today!

Photo: Josh Lopez

by Jackie Weidman

As of this morning, more than one million comments supporting carbon pollution limits have been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).    In the first month of the commenting period these statements from families and individuals all over the country declared their support for the EPA’s new standards to cut industrial carbon pollution from power plants.   This is already the largest number of public comments sent to the EPA on any issue, with more expected in the final month of the commenting period, ending June 25.

A broad coalition of clean air, labor, and other progressive organizations – including the Center for American Progress Action Fund – delivered the following statement about the carbon pollution rule:

“Americans broadly support the EPA’s efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution that threatens the health and safety of our children, communities, and wildlife. More than one million Americans have now voiced their support for these important safeguards and called on the EPA and the White House to move forward with the strongest possible standard for new and existing power plants.”

Existing power plants are responsible for adding more than 2 billion tons of carbon and other toxic pollutants into the air each year – nearly 13,000 pounds for every man, woman, and child in the United States.   Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to climate change and threatens the health and safety of Americans.  Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, causing more event-related deaths and injuries.

Next week, on May 24, EPA will conduct public hearings will take place in Chicago and Washington D.C., allowing for more public participation in the rule-making.  As big coal companies spend millions of dollars to weaken these public safeguards, it is increasingly critical that EPA continues to hear from Americans who support reducing carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

Please join us and more than one million Americans calling for cleaner air.  Make your voice heard by clicking HERE to submit a favorable comment to the EPA today!

Jackie Weidman is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

By Jessica Goad

Yesterday, the House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills to mandate and encourage oil and gas drilling in the West.  All of the bills throw open more public lands to drilling, mirroring the wishes of the oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Just two days ago, API released a report outlining its political wish list.  It included two provisions about drilling on lands that belong to American taxpayers:

We Are Calling For: The opening of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge – 1002 Area; portions of the Rocky Mountains; lifting of the drilling moratorium in New York, and timely review projects on federal land.

We Are Calling For:  The federal government to increase lease sales and adopt pro-access processes to improve development of U.S. oil and natural gas resources on public lands.

All three of the drilling bills passed by the Natural Resources Committee yesterday seek to open more lands for oil and gas development, increase lease sales, and streamline access — just as API has asked Congress to do:

-  H.R. 4381 from Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) requires planning for an “all of the above” energy plan on public lands and requires the relevant secretaries to meet a “domestic strategic production objective.”

-  H.R. 4382 from Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) mandates leasing and requires that at least 25 percent of the acres nominated by the oil and gas industry be leased, in essence turning land management decisions over to the industry.

-  H.R. 4383 from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) would force the Interior Department to issue oil and gas leases within a certain arbitrary time frame, as well as punish citizens for exercising their legal right to protest oil and gas leases.

Not surprisingly, these three members have taken significant campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. In the 2012 cycle, oil and gas has given Tipton  $44,250; Coffman:  $77,500; and Lamborn:  $31,250.

More light was recently shed on the cozy relationship between members of Congress and the oil and gas industry. A few days ago, emails from a staffer to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) were released referring to the oil and gas industry as “our partners.”

While the three bills passed yesterday seek to increase access to public lands for energy development, an Interior Department report released on Tuesday shows that the industry already has incredible access.  Not only did the government hold “… three of the top five largest [lease] sales in the agency’s history” last year, but 56 percent of the public lands leased to the oil and gas industry in the lower 48 states were not producing any fossil fuels or being explored.

Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It must have been the attack ads criticizing clean energy that caused Republican Rob Hatch to speak up. A 10-year veteran of the wind industry, Hatch, who calls himself a former “Iowa farm boy,” has expanded his wind business to 28 employees.

And now he’s defending his livelihood from the “oil billionaires spending millions of dollars on false smear TV commercials” in a spirited op-ed:

It is difficult to watch these people air their TV ads slapping around the president’s support of my employees’ jobs and ridiculous claims that he created jobs in Mexico and China.

The president kept our doors open and our employees working because of the wind-production tax credit and 1603 Treasury grant program.

And we were able to keep jobs in Iowa. The majority of the people I employ here in Alta are either farm kids or still working on the family farm in the evening. Today, the school district in Alta receives somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of its revenue from wind turbines. And almost 30 percent of the taxes paid into the county are off wind turbines.

Wind is an American success story in Iowa.

With 2,900 turbines in Iowa providing 20% of the state’s electricity, creating more than 215 businesses, 6,000 jobs, and helping spur more than $14.46 million in annual lease payments to farmers and other landowners, wind has been a major driver of economic activity. And that activity is benefiting business owners like Hatch:

I can tell you that I’m not reaping massive profits like the oil billionaires funding these ads with their billions in subsidies and tax breaks. Right now my wife and I are living invoice to invoice, praying we have enough money to make payroll every two weeks. I have missed Christmas concerts, wedding anniversaries and school plays and sacrificed so much more to keep my business going.

These economic success stories have been well documented. They involve people like Nathan Crawford, a wind technician based in Fraklin County, Iowa, who we visited in December:

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

Countries which agreed to sign a deal in 2015 to cut greenhouse gas emissions should set milestones this year to ensure the necessary work is done on time, the United Nations’ climate chief said on Wednesday. [Reuters]

The growing number of electric vehicle drivers in Los Angeles are behaving differently from the national norm. [Los Angeles Times]

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants to hear from two Cabinet officials — Commerce Secretary John Bryson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu — as part of an investigation into the Energy Department’s loan program. [The Hill]

A multifaceted air and ground-based scientific field campaign is underway in the Central and Southern U.S., with about 275 scientists, pilots, and technicians out to solve meteorological mysteries about how thunderstorms affect the chemistry of the upper atmosphere. [Climate Central]

Divisions have again emerged on the first few days of the latest round of international climate change talks in Bonn, with the EU and groups of developing countries clashing over the future of the controversial Kyoto protocol. [Guardian]

President Dilma Rousseff is facing one of the defining moments of her presidency as pressure builds on her to veto a bill that would open vast protected areas of forests to ranching and farming, potentially reversing Brazil’s major gains in slowing Amazon deforestation. [New York Times]

IBM’s Ehningen Innovation Center campus in Germany is about to become ground zero for the development of an advanced personal transportation system that combines Hertz’s car sharing know-how with distributed renewable energy, electric vehicles and smart microgrid technology. [TPM]

Funding cuts to squeezed local authorities are putting the UK’s carbon targets at risk, the government’s climate advisers warned in a report published on Thursday. [Guardian]

The Heartland Institute is doubling down on its widely-condemned effort to label leading proponents of climate science as “murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

CEO Joe Bast has sent a letter to one of the scholars who “have expressed trepidation about continuing their long-time associations with us.” Not to worry, says Bast, we’re still into wacky hate speech, same as ever, we just will use our website — and not billboards — to smear folks. He explains:

Of course, what’s fake here is, well, pretty much every single word in this letter. Heartland lecturing folks on accuracy? If you look up chutzpah in the dictionary….

Heartland posted a statement saying “We do not apologize for running the ad.” And they kept online their original defense of the billboard, which made absurd statements like, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Some mistake.

Obviously, Bast stands by this nonsense. The uber-vindicated Michael Mann, one of the most highly regarded climatologists in the country, had this to say in reply to Bast:

Being called a “mad man” by Joe Bast & Heartland is like being called overexposed by Kim Kardashian.

Michael Mann and Bill McKibben?

UPDATE: The too-sane-for-this-world Bill McKibben sends me this response:

Was preparing to feel insulted, but then I thought … Don Draper! and fired up some Johnny Mathis on my spotify.

How out of touch are Bast and Heartland?

They post their beyond-the-pale extremism in a blog named “Somewhat Reasonable”:

In the Bizarro World of Htrae that Heartland inhabits, I guess Somewhat Reasonable = Most Unreasonable.

Finally, Bast just can’t stop defending the billboard with nonsensical arguments:

Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed. He still believes in global warming. We simply put his picture on a billboard, pointed out the “inconvenient truth,” and asked, “do you?”

But wait, I thought Bast just said the billboard was a mistake? In any case, as Greenwire reported on the Unabomber’s manifesto (which you can confirm online):

The words “climate change” don’t appear in the manifesto, nor are there references to “global warming” or “carbon.”

Asked about this discrepancy, Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely pointed to a passage from Kaczynski’s manifesto that says the Industrial Revolution has “inflicted severe damage on the natural world.”

#FAIL

Photo Credit: Aaron Fishman

by Glenn Hurowitz

The Obama administration is poised to make one of the biggest climate policy decisions of its entire administration – and it’s not about coal, oil, or gas, but rainforests.  EPA is deciding whether or not palm oil should be included in the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates that American motorists use 36 billion gallons of biofuel in their cars and trucks by 2022. In order to qualify for inclusion, palm oil would have to cut greenhouse gas pollution by at least 20 percent compared to gasoline.

Which means that it should be an easy call: Of all the biofuels, palm oil causes by far the most pollution because much of it is grown by clearing and burning dense rainforests, many of them on carbon-rich peatland, to make room for plantations. That widespread deforestation has made Indonesia the world’s third biggest global warming polluter, just behind China and the United States.

EPA recognized some of the problems with palm oil in its draft finding that palm oil does not qualify for inclusion in the RFS … but just barely. However, a close look at EPA’s draft finds that it used old and deeply flawed data to systematically underestimate the emissions from palm oil. For instance, the analysis draws on data on plantation expansion that ends in 2003 – not taking into account how much worse the palm oil industry has gotten since then.

Newer studies from the National Academies of Science and the International Council on Clean Transportation find that the palm oil industry’s carbon footprint just keeps getting bigger:

The new study used satellite imagery to map the encroachment of oil palm plantations onto peatlands from 1990 to 2000, from 2000 to 2007, and finally 2007 to 2010. Despite increasing awareness of climate change in that period, the rate of peat destruction was higher in this last 3 year period than ever before. “Everywhere we looked, the drainage of peat to plant palm oil is increasing, “ said Dr. Chris Malins of the International Council on Clean Transportation, one of the organizations that carried out the study. “In the Sarawak province in Malaysian Borneo, for instance, based on the last 3 years we would expect over 80% of future palm expansion to be at the expense of peat.” The findings are echoed in a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Kim Carlson et al., which found that from 2008-2011 69% of palm oil conversion in the Indonesian province of West Kalimantan occurred at the expense of peat, even despite the introduction of a ‘moratorium’ in 2011.

All in all, this deforestation means that running a car on palm oil produces a lot more greenhouse gases than running it on Canadian tar sands. Indeed, a study in Science found that it would take palm oil biofuels grown on peatland a whopping 423 years to pay back the carbon debt created through land clearance. In other words, a palm plantation cleared in the year 1600 that produced biofuels for the last several centuries would still not have displaced enough oil to make up for the amount of carbon released when the land was cleared. Palm oil can make even dirty oil look green.

Read more

Even with the wettest April on record, some areas of England are still facing “exceptional” drought conditions. After two years of dry winters — including the fifth-driest March — the ground hasn’t been able to soak up the heavy rainfall that hit in April.

The situation in the country illustrates the cruel reality of “rollercoaster” extreme weather — a problem that will only be exacerbated by accumulating heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Recent research also finds that the loss of Arctic ice favors extreme, prolonged weather events “such as drought, flooding, cold spells and heat waves.”

The rain has certainly helped some regions. But other parts of England were so dry, it could take months of record rainfall to bring groundwater levels back to normal. One aquifer close to London is 90 percent below normal levels for this time of year.

Experts in the country are explaining why the combination of extremely dry and extremely wet conditions make it harder to recover from drought. Climatewire reported on the problem:

“Heavy rain on parched ground is like pouring water on an old, dry sponge. Much of it will bounce off. The sponge needs to be wet in order to hold the water. Farmers are in a much better position than they were thanks to the rains. River levels have risen, soil moisture has increased and their water reserves have been replenished. But aquifers take much longer to fill,” said a spokeswoman for England’s Environment Agency.

According to figures from the Environment Agency, 42 percent of groundwater “indicator sites” are “exceptionally low.”

“Over the last two winters, the amount of rainfall we have had has been down 20 to 30 percent on what we would normally have. Most of the recharge of groundwater happens over the winter. We lost three to four months of groundwater recharge in total over that two-year period,” [explained Andrew McKenzie of the British Geological Survey McKenzie to Climatewire.]

“We have now had the wettest April ever, and you might think that would go halfway to recharging the groundwater. But we also had a very dry March, and the soils had already switched to summer, dry mode and had to switch back,” he added.

Ironically, when the rains hit in April after a dry March, the Environment Agency issued 13 severe flood warnings and 42 flood alerts for areas around the country — all while homeowners were banned from watering their gardens.

This will eventually be normal weather under a business as usual emissions scenario.

According to a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, our current rate of emissions puts us on a path to dust bowl conditions in many areas of the world, while “precipitation may become more intense but less frequent (i.e., longer dry spells) under GHG-induced global warming. This may increase flash floods and runoff, but diminish soil moisture and increase the risk of agricultural drought.”

Related Posts:

• Must-See Video: Has Global Warming Caused A Quantum Jump In Extreme Weather?
• NOAA: Human-Caused Climate Change Already a Major Factor in More Frequent Mediterranean Droughts
• Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse

by Jorge Madrid

The fossil fuel industry is aggressively pushing its drill-everywhere-drill-anything agenda, which would open up every square inch of America to extraction. So what would happen if we gave the industry what it wants?

Today, the Center for American Progress released “America’s Future Under ‘Drill, Baby, Drill,’” describing where we may be in the year 2030 if we continue down the path of fossil fuel dependency that the American Petroleum Institute (API) advocates a report on the organization’s “vision,” also released today.

If you ask API, that vision means opening up significant portions of our oceans that are currently off-limits to drilling; turning large swaths of our pristine public lands into areas for extraction; and pushing shortcuts in the environmental and public health review process to speed up permits.

In short, Big Oil wants a free ride to “Drill Baby Drill” straight into our children’s future.

But at what cost?

CAP’s report illustrates some of the costs we may incur if Big Oil gets its way: Intensifying heat waves, drought, and accelerated sea-level rise become a normal part of our warming, unchecked, carbon-spewing world. Public health impacts in the U.S. from smog and ozone quadruple, global food prices rise, and water scarcity exacerbates already-worsening conditions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

What will our economy look like under the “Drill Baby Drill” scenario? Consumers will be more vulnerable to spikes in the global oil market as clean energy and efficiency become an afterthought; public health costs add up as lawmakers strip needed regulations; and America misses an opportunity to invest in a globally-competitive clean energy sector, thus ceding leadership to China, India and Europe.

Of course, we can’t predict what 2030 will exactly look like. But we do have a massive body of scientific evidence showing us we must reduce emissions quickly today — otherwise, it will be too late.

Big Oil can no longer pretend that its vision is consistent with a prosperous, healthy future. Making our country more reliant on fossil fuels is good for the largest, most profitable companies in the world — but it’s terrible for society.

And now, come with us into the dystopian future, to the year 2030…

Jorge Madrid is a Research Associate for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

by Peter Lehner, via NRDC’s Switchboard

In a recent PBS documentary, the mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, Paul Fraim, talks about how flooding has become a monthly occurrence in his town, and how global warming and sea level rise are as much a daily issue for him as education and fighting crime. In some parts of Norfolk, streets turn into rivers at high tide. Homes are flooded five out of six years. People lose their carpets, their appliances, their savings. And they can’t afford to move elsewhere.

Sea levels have risen 14 inches in Norfolk since 1930–almost double the global rate. Part of this alarming change is due to the natural sinking of the area’s soggy tidal lands, but part of it is due to the rising sea levels brought about by global warming. Like stranded polar bears in the North Pole, like disappearing island nations in the Pacific, waterlogged Norfolk is yet another symbol of global warming at work. And even though Norfolk is within spitting distance of our nation’s capital, Congress still hasn’t seemed to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Turning a blind eye to the realities of global warming is a dangerous game. Scientists predict that sea levels will rise anywhere from 7 inches to 78 inches in the next 100 years (depending, in part, on how much we do to curb global warming pollution), which means that in a few generations, nearly five million people who currently live within 4 feet of high tide could be in the same boat as the residents of Norfolk.

New research shows that global warming will double the chance of a hundred-year flood occurring in many locations within the next 18 years. In some areas, the chance is tripled.

Nearly half the states in the nation will be affected by rising sea levels. Despite these odds, for the most part, we are financially, structurally, and administratively unprepared to deal with the most immediate consequences of global warming.

Bailing out after a flood is a major expense not only for swamped cities, but for taxpayers all over the country. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, spent more than $100,000 per home in Norfolk to raise residences above expected water levels. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), run by FEMA, is nearly $18 billion in debt, and has had to borrow money from the Treasury to stay afloat.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman, Celine Ramstein

On April 13 the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first-ever rules to limit carbon dioxide pollution from new power plants. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to climate change and threatens the health and safety of Americans. Existing power plants are responsible for adding more than 2 billion tons of carbon and other toxic pollutants into the air each year—nearly 13,000 pounds for every man, woman, and child in the United States. The new rules will reduce the pollution added by new power plants by 123 billion pounds annually.

This piece explains the carbon pollution standard’s benefits and why it’s important. Besides cutting pollution the standard provides regulatory certainty for utilities planning to build new power plants. Still, big utilities and the coal companies, along with their congressional allies, are mobilizing to block the standard. But they’re out of touch with public opinion. Speak up on this issue by submitting a public comment to the EPA supporting the rule.

Why we need to limit power plant pollution

Before we get into what the EPA standard does, let’s look at why it’s necessary.

Read more

by Kate Gordon

A simmering trade dispute between the U.S. and China will likely come to a head tomorrow when the U.S. Department of Commerce issues its determination on alleged trade violations by Chinese solar manufacturers.  Surprisingly, the U.S. solar industry is not in agreement on the need to hold the Chinese accountable.  It should be.

On one side are those who claim China has been illegally subsidizing and dumping its solar products in the U.S. market, forcing many American manufacturers into bankruptcy.  These companies, mostly manufacturers of solar panels and related products, claim Chinese solar companies have benefited from government largesse in the form of free land and facilities, electricity and water, and low- or no-cost loans that keep prices for Chinese-made solar products artificially low.  In addition, they claim these Chinese companies are illegally “dumping” their cheap solar panels into the American market, making it nearly impossible for U.S. manufacturers to compete.

On the other side are those, mostly solar installers, who have benefited from the ability to buy low-cost solar panels, which they claim has allowed them to do solar installations at a lower cost and therefore expand the use of solar power in America.  This group of U.S. companies argues that U.S. manufacturers can’t compete with the Chinese when it comes to solar panel production, because the Chinese are simply more efficient and can do production at a lower cost.  They also worry that pursuing a trade case will incite a “trade war” with China, which will erode their profit margins, slow U.S. industry growth across the value chain, and make it even harder for solar energy to compete with traditional fossil fuels.

Both sides have compelling arguments.  So who’s right?

One way to answer that question is to say that we’ll find out who’s right when the Department of Commerce issues its findings.  Commerce has already found that China is unfairly subsidizing its solar industry, and has imposed tariffs on Chinese solar manufacturers as a result.  The upcoming decision, on whether China is also illegally dumping those panels into the U.S. market, may bring larger tariffs if China is found to be in violation of our mutually-agreed-upon, and heavily negotiated, trade agreements.  The entire point of the trade enforcement regime is to figure out whether a country is in fact breaking the rules, and if so, to issue sanctions. It’s a system based on the rule of law, something we Americans hold dear, and for good reason.

But would a decision against China undermine America’s emerging solar energy industry? There is no question that solar energy faces an uphill battle in the U.S.  The combination of century-old subsidies to fossil fuel companies and the lack of any real national commitment to renewable energy makes it difficult for emerging energy technologies to compete here.  But that doesn’t mean that the United States needs cheap Chinese solar panels so badly that we should just roll over and let a foreign government break enforceable international trade rules.  If Commerce finds that the Chinese government has acted illegally, then the Chinese government and the industry it is subsidizing should pay a price for that behavior.

Our faith in the rule of law is too important for us to abandon our international trade obligations in favor of cheap imported solar panels.  So, too, is our need to support the U.S. manufacturing sector by protecting it from unlawful trade practices.  Manufacturing is a crucial piece of the U.S. economy. Our ability to stay innovative and competitive in a time of intense global pressures relies on manufacturing companies, which contribute fully 70 percent of all the private research and development spending in America.  And these companies are major job creators: a recent report by SEMI found that manufacturing jobs had the highest job multiplier of any segment of the American economy.

That’s why we should be supporting clean energy manufacturers in their efforts to compete with China, through programs like the Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program that President Obama recently urged Congress to extend, or through Senator Sherrod Brown’s “Security and Energy in Manufacturing Act,” rather than punishing them for trying to compete on a level playing field. Because that’s the crucial point:  every American company should be able to compete on a level playing field in the international marketplace.  That’s good for solar manufacturers in the current case, but it’s good for all American companies – and for our economy as a whole – in the long run.

Kate Gordon is vice president for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Related Posts:

• Commerce Department Announces Small Tariffs On Chinese Solar Panels
• 5 Myths and Realities About U.S.-China Solar Trade Competition: Our Nation Cannot Capitulate to China’s Solar Technology Ambitions

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

North Dakota has passed Alaska to become the No. 2 oil-producing state in the country, reflecting how the embrace of new drilling technology is redrawing the U.S. energy map. [Wall Street Journal]

Americans just lived through the hottest 12 months ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Tuesday. [LA Times]

Should nations of the world ever see fit to sign a treaty limiting emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas, scientists from the University of Utah and Harvard have developed a way to verify compliance. [CleanTechnica]

A proposed $5bn transmission line connecting wind farms off the East coast of the US to the mainland is on track to come online by 2017, after the Google-backed project cleared another regulatory hurdle. [Guardian]

Because sometimes to get your point across you need to dress up as an Arctic Tern, scores of anti-drilling activists on Tuesday gathered outside the White House dressed in fuzzy onesies and polar bear masks. [Huffington Post]

Chinese and Indian airlines failed to submit carbon-dioxide emissions data for 2011, disregarding European rules that seek to expand the region’s emissions trading system to include aviation. [New York Times]

The oil company Total started pumping heavy mud down its leaking well in the North Sea on Tuesday in an attempt to stop an escape of gas that has lasted nearly eight weeks and could deprive Britain of nearly 6% of its supply this summer. [Guardian]

In an attempt to keep the political war against renewable energy in the headlines, Republicans are holding another hearing to question the value of government investments in the sector.

Looks like ten political sideshows on Solyndra weren’t enough.

If tomorrow morning’s hearing were being used as a chance to objectively assess where the industry stands, that would be one thing. But the title of the meeting gives away the real political intent: “The Obama Administration’s Green Energy Gamble: What Have All The Taxpayer Subsidies Achieved?

Actually, those green energy investments have yielded substantial returns. And before the political grandstanding begins in the House of Representatives tomorrow, here are five important things you should know about how promotion of clean energy has supported American businesses and consumers:

1. The 1603 grant program supported up to 75,000 jobs and 23,000 renewable energy projects during the height of the recession. When the recession hit, it was very difficult for project developers to find banks that were willing to utilize tax credits. So a cash grant program was created to give companies an easier way to finance projects. While it’s very difficult to know the exact influence of the grant on each project, the program played a major role in maintaining momentum — helping support $25 billion in gross economic activity, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

2. The production tax credit helps leverage up to $20 billion in private investment annually. With this key tax credit in place, the wind industry has dropped costs by 90% over the last few decades. It’s helped states like Iowa reach 20% wind penetration — bringing that state over 215 businesses that support 5,000 workers. Across the rest of the U.S., the entire industry supports 75,000 jobs, with 30,000 in manufacturing. However, up to 37,000 of those jobs could be at risk due Congressional lawmakers’ inability to extend the tax credit.

3. The loan guarantee program is expected to cost $2 billion less than budgeted. This program has gotten a black eye due to the bankruptcies of a few companies — most famously Solyndra — that received guarantees. But according to John McCain’s National Finance Chairman, Herb Allison, the cost to taxpayers will likely be far less than initially thought. In fact, over the last 20 years of experience, the U.S. government has shown a knack for managing risk — with loans and loan guarantee programs only costing tax payers 94 cents for every $100 dollars invested.

4. Home weatherization grew 1000% from April to June of 2011, creating 14,800 jobs. After a slow ramp-up, efficiency programs supported by the stimulus package have helped weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes. In addition to supporting the retrofits of individual homes, the Obama administration has supported the Better Buildings Initiative, a program that has leveraged billions of private dollars to upgrade more than 4 billion square feet of public and private buildings in the next two years. That’s enough demand to support over 100,000 jobs.

5. ARPA-E has supported dozens of potentially groundbreaking technologies in advanced materials, renewable fuels, electricity generation, waste heat, and battery storage. Helping enhance America’s lead in technological innovation, the Advanced Research Research Projects Agency for Energy — initially funded through the stimulus package — has helped inventors, companies, and university labs boost their work. This program has immense bi-partisan support for promoting the “innovative research that makes America great and has fueled our economic growth for generations.”

Despite these successes, Republicans continue milking the Solyndra bankruptcy for an election-year story that doesn’t hold up — dragging the rest of the clean energy industry into the mud.

The sector has gone through some high-profile shake-ups and bankruptcies, so it’s the duty of lawmakers to understand how tax payer dollars are being deployed. That’s a supportable endeavor. But holding yet another hearing to lambast the President for a so-called “gamble” in clean energy isn’t productive for anyone.

by Adam James

At the advent of the Internet 30 years ago, having large amounts of personal information accessible on a shared network would have been unthinkable — even if that network would make our lives easier. But we found a way to navigate this privacy minefield with one straightforward idea: Entrust our personal information to certain entities with the expectation that it will be secured, and, in exchange, we get a life with more choices. While there is sometimes an inverse relationship between access and privacy, it is a challenge we have overcome.

The tension between data access and privacy is evident today in the smart electrical grid. It is “smart” because it can harness new information and communications technology to expand its functions while increasing efficiency and accessibility. The transformative potential of this information intelligence is amazing — just ask anyone making the choice between a landline and a smart phone.

Over the next few years, deployment of new technologies will ensure that the quality and quantity of energy information increases dramatically. Qualitatively, smart appliances will reveal much more detailed feedback about consumers’ patterns, such as time and length of use. Quantitatively, the data points about a consumer’s energy usage will go from thousands to millions annually.

This data will empower consumers in two ways. First, managing their energy consumption will help save them money. They’ll see lower energy bills from setting HVAC systems to operate intermittently when no one’s home and having appliances go dark when they’re unused. Second, two-way energy flow between consumers and electric utilities will allow consumers to participate in energy commerce, selling unused energy back onto the grid for profit. Harnessing distributed generation projects, such as rooftop solar panels, using demand response by getting cash rebates for not consuming energy at peak hours, and taking advantage of personal electric vehicles as battery storage units for the grid are all examples of how people can use enabling technology to change the game.

But here’s the rub. The data reveals a tremendous amount of real-time information about the consumer, which could lead to severe privacy violations if it were mined for behaviors and preferences.

This data clearly needs to be secured. However, if the security is too restrictive, it will inhibit third-party innovation, hurting businesses trying to enter the market. If it is too lax, consumers may be exploited, and companies could face serious legal action.

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy and Jessica Goad

Congressional Republicans who think the only purpose of public lands is to provide subsidized commodities to industry generally ignore the many economists who provide hard evidence that protecting natural spaces provides huge economic benefits.

If these lawmakers don’t believe economists, perhaps they’ll believe another group with political sway: small business owners.

A new survey conducted for the Small Business Majority finds that 63 percent of small business owners in Colorado say access to protected public lands and outdoor spaces is a major part of why they set up operations in the state.

The results show that these small business owners strongly support the president’s “all of the above” energy strategy — with more than half saying they would be more likely to support such a plan if it includes steps to conserve some areas and keep them free of development.

By a 4:1 margin, those small business owners say that creating new national parks and monuments would have a positive impact on jobs and the economy.

“Our nation’s most prolific job creators are asking that smart steps are taken to preserve Colorado’s natural assets because they believe it’s good for business,” said John Arensmeyer, founded and CEO of Small Business Majority.

These small businessmen understand intuitively what the experts continue to explain in their anaysis.

Last fall, for example, more than 100 economists wrote to President Obama urging him to expand efforts to protect more national parks, national monuments and wilderness areas. “Protected public lands are significant contributors to economic growth,” they said in their letter.

More recently, Headwaters Economics, a consulting firm based in Montana, found that more than four times as many jobs are created in non-metro counties with protected public lands than in those without. Counties with more than 30% of their lands federally protected increased jobs by 344% over 40 years, compared to just an 80% increase in jobs in non-metro counties with no protected federal lands.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss

The Department of Interior released an updated analysis of fossil fuel leases today, finding that more than two thirds of offshore leases and half of onshore leases are sitting idle — “neither producing nor under active exploration.”

The report, “Oil and Gas Lease Utilization, Onshore and Offshore Updated Report to the President,” explained that oil and gas companies hold thousands of undeveloped leases. Despite holding these inactive leases, the oil industry continues to demand the opening of new, previously protected federal lands and waters areas to drilling.

The report found that:

More than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres currently under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. Out of nearly 36 million acres leased offshore, only about 10 million acres are active – leaving nearly 72 percent of the offshore leased area idle.

In the lower 48 states, an additional 20.8 million acres, or 56 percent of onshore leased acres, remain idle. Furthermore, there are approximately 7,000 approved permits for drilling on federal and Indian lands that have not yet been drilled by companies.

According to the Energy Information Administration, total federal oil production (offshore and onshore) has increased by 13 percent during the first three years of the Obama administration combined, compared with the last three years of the previous administration. According to independent analysis, the total number of active rigs operating on the U.S. outer continental shelf was higher in January 2012 than any time since May 2010.

The American Petroleum Institute – Big Oil’s lobbying arm — claims that the Department of Interior ignores exploratory work on leases; however, that is clearly included in DOI’s assessment above.

API recently demanded that the Obama Administration open up the North Atlantic to “seismic exploration” for oil. This is an area that supports vital American fisheries.

In addition to holding thousands of undeveloped leases while lobbying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the New England Coast, and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the big five oil companies produced 12 percent less oil in 2011 than in 2006 — all while making record profits.

Daniel J. Weiss is Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad

In a surprise move last night, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed a bill demanding that the federal government turn over up to 25 million acres of public lands to the state by 2014 or face a lawsuit.  In a statement, Brewer said that she was:

“…concerned about the lack of certainty this legislation could create for individuals holding existing leases on federal lands.  Given the difficult economic times, I do not believe this is the time to add to that uncertainty.”

The overwhelming legal expert opinion is that this type of bill is unconstitutional — which is how the courts have ruled over many decades.  The Salt Lake Tribune called a similar effort in Utah “tilting at windmills.”

This is a blow to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group that designs “model” legislation and is funded by the likes of Koch Industries, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.  ALEC endorsed this particular legislation, as the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

Turning over public lands could eventually lead to their privatization, opening them up to mining, drilling and other industrial activity.

A similar bill demanding federal lands be turned over to the state was signed into law by Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) last month.  The state has demanded 30 million acres of public lands by 2015 or it will sue.  And, the Utah legislature has already authorized the state’s attorney general to spend $3 million on the anticipated legal battle.

Brewer’s veto of this bill is also a major setback to those aiming to start a new “sagebrush rebellion” in the West, and may bring an end to other lawmakers’ dreams of privatizing public lands.  As Arizona state senator Al Melvin, the primary sponsor of the bill, said:

What we envision is all of the Western states going before the Supreme Court to force this issue.

It seems that for now, this unconstitutional effort has been thwarted, despite similar bills rumored to be in development in Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress.