ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act an improvement over House bill on offsets

By Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm

With respect to offsets, the Kerry-Boxer bill is a distinct improvement over the ACES [Waxman-Markey]. It allows a relatively strong approach to offset integrity, avoiding negative social or environmental effects, and facilitating possible integration with other systems. It also addresses some issues that will be important to the functioning of a trading market, but still leaves some uncertainties that could cause problems in the market.

One of the weakest features in both the House and Senate climate bills is the large quantity of offsets that polluters are allowed to buy in place of purchasing allowances or reducing their own emissions.  I have spent a lot of time talking to leading experts and analyzing the international offset market, which has led me to realize that large-scale, inexpensive international offsets don’t exist nor will they (see “Do the 2 billion offsets allowed in Waxman-Markey gut the emissions targets?“) “” whereas large-scale inexpensive domestic emissions reductions strategies do (see “the 2020 Waxman-Markey target is so damn easy and cheap to meet“).

Moreover, CBO projects that roughly half of the domestic offsets will come from actual reductions in U.S. emissions (in uncapped sectors).  As for international offsets, they aren’t as bad as many people think (see “The CDM: Rip-offsets or real reductions?“), they haven’t gutted the Europe’s Kyoto targets under their trading system (see “Europe poised to meet Kyoto target: Does this mean the much-maligned European Trading System is a success?“), and lots of countries want to join the market (see “Japan’s carbon cuts may include offsets“).  That said, they need greater supervision (see “UN suspends largest CDM auditor “” Copenhagen needs to clean up the Clean Development Mechanism, Senate should keep House’s tough offset language“).

The good news is that the Senate bill seems like a genuine improvement over the house bill in this key area, according to my guest blogger, Victor B. Flatt, the Taft Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill School of Law, and the Distinguished Scholar of Carbon Trading and Carbon Markets, Global Energy Management Institute, University of Houston, Bauer College of Business.  His post, “Kerry-Boxer an Improvement over ACES on Offsets,” was first published by the Center for Progressive Reform here.

Read more

Politics

Steele Dismisses Report That Obama Has Received 400 Percent More Threats Than Bush

By Matt Corley on Sep 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm

On CNN’s American Morning today, host John Roberts asked RNC Chairman Michael Steele about the Facebook poll that asked “Should Obama be killed?” — which the Secret Service is investigating — and whether it was “spawned by racism.” “No, I don’t think,” replied Steele, adding that he’s “always very careful about going down that road, you know, so blindly and so quickly.”

Roberts followed up by asking Steele if he agreed with Tom Friedman’s column this morning, in which he wrote that “Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.” “Where do these nut jobs come from? I mean, come on, stop this,” replied Steele. He then said that America didn’t have “this kind of conversation” when people were “complaining and protesting” about President Bush.

“Not to say that it’s about the color of his skin or his background, ethnic background or whatever, but threats against this president are at a level 400 percent higher than they were against former President Bush,” replied Roberts. “What explains that?” Steele was skeptical of Roberts’ numbers, saying “how do we know that?” When Roberts said it came from the Secret Service, Steele largely dismissed the concern:

STEELE: Well, I don’t — I don’t know — I don’t know that because I don’t have a report to compare that to. The Secret Service has it. I haven’t seen that publicly put out there statistically to show that.

But even if it is, this is my point. You know, I think that we need to be very smart and very careful about jumping, making these leaps on race and connecting dots that may or may not exist there. We are engaged as a country right now in a very important public policy debate, whether it’s the war in Afghanistan or health care cap and trade or what happens to be. There are passions that run deep and long on both sides of the aisle.

Don’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that, because someone says something vitriolic or hot that that’s necessarily from the right or necessarily from the left. It’s reflecting deep-seeded frustrations that people have. We don’t excuse it but I just — I want us to be very careful because I just — I see ugly things happening down the road if we’re not smart approaching these types of issues.

Watch it:

Roberts’ 400 percent statistic comes from Newsmax correspondent Ronald Kessler’s book, In the President’s Secret Service, for which he had unprecedented access to the agency. “A lot of those threats are racially based,” Kessler told the New York Daily News. “So there is a real basis for concern.”

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Socialized Medicine is Good Enough for Congress

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Attending Physician of the United States Congress, Brian Monahan

Attending Physician of the United States Congress, Brian Monahan

This sure is a nice perk congress has granted itself:

Formally called the Office of the Attending Physician, the clinic — and at least six satellite offices — bills its mission as one of emergency preparedness and public health. Each day, it stands ready to handle medical emergencies, biological attacks and the occasional fainting tourist visiting Capitol Hill.

Officially, the office acknowledges these types of services, including providing physicals to Capitol police officers and offering flu shots to congressional staffers. But what is rarely discussed outside the halls of Congress is the office’s other role — providing a wealth of primary care medical services to senators, representatives and Supreme Court justices.

What’s noteworthy here isn’t just the existence of the perk, it’s the specific form. Congress could have voted itself higher salaries. Or better travel benefits. Or larger appropriations so the congressional cafeterias can serve better food. But or just more generous health insurance. But what they wanted here was socialized medicine—health care that’s not only financed by the state but directly provided by government employees. This kind of state-provided health care is basically universal in the UK, it accounts for an important chunk of the health care in Sweden, and it’s what we give to our veterans in the United States. But most members of congress claim regard it as a horrifying prospect. And yet in practice they appear to like it just fine

Climate Progress

EPA Will Begin Regulating Industrial Global Warming Pollution In March, 2010

By Brad Johnson on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Air PollutionAppearing at a climate summit in Los Angeles today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will announce the administration’s plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution, with or without the support of Congress. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed global warming standards for motor vehicles, applauded by the auto industry. Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, when these regulations go into effect in March 2010, all major greenhouse gas polluters — from coal-fired power plants and oil refiners to methane-emitting landfills — are automatically subject to regulation:

Under EPA’s current interpretation of PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V applicability requirements, promulgation of this motor vehicle rule will trigger the applicability of PSD and title V requirements for stationary sources that emit GHGs.

Today’s proposed rule — which allows public comment until December — technically is a “tailoring rule” to limit regulation of global warming pollution to emitters of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, instead of the automatic statutory amount of 250 tons. This 250-ton standard would cover about four million businesses and homes — the “glorious mess” President Bush used as an excuse for his inaction. The EPA plans to raise the pollution limit to 25,000 tons, so that only 14,000 industrial pollution sources nationwide would be covered by the regulations, 11,000 of which are currently covered by the Clean Air Act permitting requirements already. Each stationary source covered would be required to apply for a title V operating permit, and all new sources would require a new source review permit.

Today’s announcement by the EPA comes hours after the introduction of legislation to limit global warming pollution by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) this morning, two-and-a-half years after the U.S. Supreme Court mandated action on global warming pollution, and 17 years after the United States ratified the Rio de Janeiro climate treaty, pledging to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Climate Progress

Nike runs fast and loud from the incredible, shrinking U.S. Chamber Board over its global warming denial

By Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

http://www.mitchglaser.com/journal/uploaded_images/header_img-772603.jpg

Nike has put on its running shoes and bolted from the incredible, shrinking industry group’s board, like so many others (see “Will last company to leave the Chamber’s Boardroom please turn off the lights!” and “Nation’s largest utility pulls the plug on the Chamber over climate denial“).  Think Progress has the details:

In the past couple weeks, three energy companies have ditched the reeling U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to global warming action. Although Nike has publicly expressed its frustrations with the Chamber’s anti-science positions, it hasn’t started to sever ties with the organization “” until now.

Facing increasing pressure from activists, Nike today announced that is resigning from the Chamber’s board of directors:

It is important that US companies be represented by a strong and effective Chamber that reflects the interests of all its members on multiple issues. We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors.

Therefore, we have decided to resign our board of directors position. We will continue our membership to advocate for climate change legislation inside the committee structure and believe that we can better influence policy by being part of the conversation. Moving forward we will continue to evaluate our membership.

The New York Times has an editorial today criticizing the Chamber for being “way behind the curve“:

Read more

Yglesias

A Surge of Swedes

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

More troops headed to Afghanistan. Swedish troops:

Sweden wants to send more troops to Afghanistan after an assessment by the Armed Forces concluded that the current force of 500 soldiers is too small. The Swedish military wants instead to boost the number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan to 630 by 2011, according to Sveriges Television (SVT).

Note that though the mission in Afghanistan is sometimes described as a NATO operation, Sweden is not a NATO member and if I understand correctly is instead operating their under the aegis of the European Union.

Swedish military fun fact is that Sweden is one of the few countries to use the Swedish-build Saab 39 Gripen which is designed to be able to take off and land on ordinary public roads in order to fight an aerial insurgency in a hypothetical Soviet-occupied Sweden.

Economy

Sen. Warner: Unless We Limit Health Care Spending Growth, ‘We’re Cooked, Game Over’

By Pat Garofalo on Sep 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm

This year, the federal deficit will exceed 11 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), which is higher than at any point in the country’s post-war history. The Office of Management and Budget, meanwhile, has “projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019.” While it would be folly to try and rein in deficits now — with the economy still in incredibly weak shape — the deficit is something that will have to be addressed eventually.

As CAP’s Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger pointed out in a new report explaining how to deal with the deficits and debt, “there is little dispute that deficits do harm if they are large enough and sustained long enough.” High government debt levels that result from sustained deficits can “leave a nation unable to go further into debt in a time of crisis,” and also mean “high interest payments on that debt in the future, reducing government’s capacity to make important public investments and provide needed services,” they wrote.

To that end, the Center for American Progress and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities convened a conference today to look at when and how the deficits should be addressed. And of course, one of the most pressing budget problems we’re facing is getting health care spending under control. The Wonk Room caught up with Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) — one of the conference panelists — who laid out in stark terms the reality of never-ending increases in health care costs, and lamented that Republicans have, thus far, been unwilling to cooperate on getting those costs under control:

If we think we’re going to continue to have health care inflation at the rate we’re having it, if we simply expand coverage and we don’t, I hate to use the phrase drive down the cost curve, but unless we can limit the rate of health care spending increases, we’re cooked. Game over. Because it will explode the deficit, it will make us financially non-competitive in the global economy, it’ll rob middle-class Americans of their disposable income.

That’s the missing part, where my colleagues on the other side, I wish would meet us more halfway. The Baucus plan — they requested no public option, deficit neutral, no money for undocumented folks, no money for abortions. Baucus presented that plan, and as somebody who’s spent years doing deals, you meet your objectives and many of them still walk away. I wish they would put aside the politics and say, let’s actually get in gear and find a way to drive down these costs.

Watch it:

When asked about ways to raise revenue to address the deficit, Warner responded, “the lesson that we learned in Virginia is that you’ve got to show an ability to cut, to reform, before you can even begin — at least in my experience — even bring up the question about revenue.” That may be true in terms of voter psychology, but in terms of practicality, something will have to be done on the revenue side to get the budget back into balance. As Linden and Ettlinger noted:

Much is said about the economic effect of tax increases, but it is worth noting that there is little risk of the United States becoming economically disadvantaged relative to other advanced economic nations by raising its aggregate tax levels. We have the fifth lowest taxes as a share of GDP among economically developed nations (counting all federal, state, and local taxes). If we raised taxes in aggregate to a level that would safely balance the budget, the United States would still be in the bottom 10 out of 30.

Not that balancing the budget solely on tax increases is a desirable way to do things, but those numbers should put in perspective what we’re talking about when we talk about tax increases. A sustainable fiscal path will require both cost-cutting and new sources of revenue — and of course, a political system that can make and support those difficult choices.

Politics

Health Insurance Stocks Rise After Defeat Of Public Option Amendments

By Zaid Jilani on Sep 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted down both the Rockefeller and Schumer amendments, which would have added a public insurance plan to the committee’s bill. As the Wall Street Journal reports, shares in health insurers Humana and UnitedHealth shot up following the votes:

Shares of companies that operate private health plans turned higher or trimmed losses in afternoon trading Tuesday after a Senate committee rejected an amendment that would have created a government-run insurance option. Humana Inc. (HUM) shares, which had been down earlier, were recently up 1% at $38.41. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) shares gained 3 cents to $25.83.

Private health insurers have bitterly fought the creation of a public insurance option, fearing that such an option would cut into their profits. Yesterday, Life And Health Insurance News reported that the insurance industry has responded positively to the defeat of the public option amendments. “We are pleased by the rejection of both the Rockefeller and Schumer amendments,” said Tom Currey, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. Janet Trautwein, president of the National Association of Health Underwriters, also told the press that her organization is pleased by the failure of the Schumer and Rockefeller amendments.

Meanwhile, disgraced former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Rick Scott, who heads the anti-reform front group Conservatives for Patients Rights, released a video where he called yesterday’s vote “a great day.”

If anyone knows how the insurance industry feels about protecting its profits from the introduction of a new public plan, it’s whistleblower Wendell Potter, who left Cigna last year over its opposition to health care reform. Potter appeared on Democracy Now! this morning and told host Amy Goodman that the Finance Committee advancing legislation without a public option marks the “first time” that a health reform bill has been put together that the industry supports:

POTTER: Yeah, this is the first time that the insurance industry has really seen great opportunity in healthcare reform, with an individual mandate, which would require all of us to buy insurance if we are not eligible for a public, government-run program, which, fortunately, many people are. We would have to buy it in the private market from insurance companies, many of whom—many of which are for-profit companies. … So billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars will flow right into the treasuries of these big for-profit insurance companies. So we will be essentially paying a tax that will help support these insurance companies. It will be an enormous bailout of the health insurance industry.

Watch it:

Potter also told Goodman that while numerous members of Congress sought out his advice as they crafted health care legislation, “not once” did he ever hear from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) office. He ended the interview by saying that there should be a debate about single-payer health care in the United States, and that he thinks “it will eventually take a social movement to get the kind of healthcare that we need in this country.”

Yglesias

Real Talk From Wayne Gilchrest: “Arrogange and dogma . . . are pervasive in the Republican Party”

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Wayne Gilchrest

Wayne Gilchrest

Alex MacGillis’ interesting profile of moderate Republican former Rep. Wayne Gilchrest mostly focuses on non-political topics, but Gilchrest does offer a few spots of real talk:

In that regard, his retreat to the Shore had nationwide echoes. He was one of a legion of moderate Republicans who fell away from the party as it narrowed around a more orthodox, pugnacious and Southern strain of conservatism. “I can remember sitting and having dinner with the other Republicans,” he said while driving to the shelter, “and thinking, if I was on the outside, I would not be having dinner with these guys.” [...]

When he started in Congress, Republicans “weren’t yet what they turned out to be,” he said. “It was the last of the WASPy New Englanders, with their sense of public service. . . . But then all of a sudden, they just got taken over. I hate to say this, but ignorance, arrogance and dogma are pervasive in the world, and they certainly are pervasive in the Republican Party.”

Gilchrest was defeated by a conservative challenger in his 2008 primary, then that guy got beaten by a Democrat. To some extent, then, this may just be sour grapes. But those are still some very tough words for guys who were his colleagues 12 months ago.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up