It’s probably fair, if crude, to talk about national societies as having “moods,” or going through particular psychological states — especially in economic depressions, when they become more fearful and less willing to take risks. The United States has spent the last few years mired in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, and a cap-and-trade system or a carbon price is unquestionably an attempt to structurally raise the price of some forms of energy.

However meritorious, those policies are something of a step into the economic unknown, and thus understandably worrying to the average voter. So if the economy is affecting the national mood, that’s a problem for policy efforts to fight climate change. And earlier this week, the Washington Post’s Brad Plumer dug up a new study that put some hard data to that phenomenon at the political level.

What Grant Jacobsen of the University of Oregon did was take a look at how unemployment in various states changed the votes of senators from those states. He used the League of Conservation Voters’ (LCV) scorecard as a measure of 296 senators’ friendliness to pro-environment votes. Then Jacobsen determined how their score changed as unemployment in their state went up and down between 1976 and 2008.

The result? For every one percent point unemployment went up, the average senator’s LCV score dropped 0.48 percentage points. Jacobsen statistical analysis also suggested this result was like due to a meaningful correlation between unemployment and the vote score, rather than random chance or noise.

To make sure he wasn’t just reading swings in the political leanings of the legislative body, Jacobsen also compared the American Democratic Association’s (ADA) scores — a widely accepted measure of liberalism — to his findings. With that control, the relationship between voting and unemployment actually strengthened, to 0.64 percentage point drop in the LCV score for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. Jacobsen also found the LCV decline was 0.83 percentage points when just looking at Republicans, and 0.29 when just looking Democrats, though the latter result wasn’t as statistically robust.

Now, changes of 0.64 and 0.48 may not sound like big swings on a score that goes from 0 to 100, but lawmaking is a game of inches.

Read more

In the last two years, severe extreme weather events — including drought and hurricanes — have cost the American economy $188 billion. Unfortunately, this situation will worsen if we continue to burn fossil fuels that release carbon pollution into the atmosphere. In fact, just yesterday, scientists in Hawaii found that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped dramatically to a new record high in 2013. Clearly, we’re on the wrong path.

The good news, though, is that we can solve this problem and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change by putting less pollution in the air. That’s why more of our elected officials are getting serious about putting a price on carbon dioxide pollution.

In last month’s State of the Union address, President Obama said

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

Today, legislators from the House and Senate responded to the President’s call. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) released a discussion draft of a bill that would charge polluters for the carbon pollution they release into the air, reducing the pollution responsible for fight climate change.

In December 2012, CAP established five principles for a progressive carbon fee. This fee should:

• Be sufficiently robust that it leads to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, getting us on a path that helps us avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. In addition to being high enough to affect pollution rates, the tax should also increase over time and be applicable to non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane. This would both ensure a continuing reduction in the release of carbon dioxide and also encourage companies to move toward cleaner energies instead of different dirty ones.
• Encourage businesses to make new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will stimulate the economy and put people back to work in the burgeoning clean-tech and green-jobs sectors.
• Reduce—not increase—economic vulnerability of low-income households by ensuring that they are fairly compensated for any increase in energy prices.
• Have appropriate mechanisms to protect existing American businesses and prevent so-called pollution leakage to countries without similar systems in place. Leakage occurs if highly polluting industries simply move to other countries that don’t have a comparable limit on pollution; in this way, they can continue business as usual without stricter environmental regulations. Leakage can also happen if domestic industries shut down, causing us to import goods from other countries.
• Reduce the budget deficit to prevent draconian cuts in vital domestic programs by raising revenue from the tax.

The draft bill from Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz meets these principles. It suggests a price of $15-30 per ton of carbon dioxide, which is sufficient to significantly reduce pollution. The bill collects the fee from midstream entities that already report greenhouse gas pollution data to the government, so it creates no large new bureaucracy. The draft also seeks comment on the best ways to spend the revenue, including consumer protection and deficit reduction.

This draft bill is part of an ongoing effort by Waxman and Whitehouse to continue to educate lawmakers and the media about the tremendous health and economic threats posed by climate change, as co-chairs of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change. They have solicited policy ideas from large businesses and environmental groups. They also sent a letter to the President recommending executive actions he could take to reduce carbon pollution under existing laws.

The authors of the draft bill are soliciting comments until April 12, and plan to formally introduce a new version of the bill in the coming months. With the leaders of the House majority denying the fundamental science of climate change, its prospects for passage are admittedly dim. This time, however, is Congress’s chance to act. Unless this bill or something very similar gets passed, Congress can look forward to the Environmental Protection Agency using its authority under the Clean Air Act to put limits on greenhouse gas pollution from the largest polluters.

Richard W. Caperton is Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress.

With incidents of prolonged drought, rising sea levels, and flooding on the rise, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bill on Wednesday to require federal natural resource agencies to plan for the long-term effects of climate change, and encourage states to prepare natural resources adaptation plans. The Safeguarding America’s Future and Environment Act (SAFE) Act also would create a science advisory board to ensure that the planning uses the best available science. The proposed legislation would require the development of a coordinated national adaptation strategy:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Panel shall develop a strategy to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources so that natural resources become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and expected impacts of climate variability and change.

It would also encourage, but not require, state-specific adaptation plans.

Effects of climate change mentioned as examples in the legislation are droughts and heatwaves, storms and floods; wildfires; outbreaks of forest pests and invasive species; flooding and erosion of coastal areas due to rising sea levels; melting glaciers and sea ice; thawing permafrost; shifting fish, wildlife, and plant population ranges; disruptive shifts in the timing of fish, wildlife, and plant natural history cycles, such as blooming, breeding, and seasonal migrations; and ocean acidification.

The legislation is cosponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), also a member of EPW. Baucus has repeatedly opposed action to limit climate change pollution.

Download the SAFE Act (as prepared for introduction).

As the budget standoff between the Republican controlled House of Representatives and the Democrats reaches a fever pitch, much of the media attention — and frustration — has been focused on reaching a solution to avert a government shutdown. But, under the radar, newly-elected Republicans across the country are proposing disastrous environmental legislation to achieve radical-right aims, such as opening state parks for fracking and exposing their citizens to industrial waste.

OHIO: At the behest of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, an exemption was inserted into a 2005 energy bill — dubbed the “Haliburton loophole” — which stripped the EPA of its power to regulate a natural gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing. This method, named fracking, entails drilling a L-shaped well deep into shale and pumping millions of gallons of water laced with industrial chemicals — chemicals which the energy companies are not legally bound to disclose. The poisonous fluid fractures the shale and releases natural gas deposits for collection. But the public health risk associated with fracking doesn’t seem to bother Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and state Republicans. The Ohio House introduced a bill early last month that would create a panel to open any state-owned land for oil and gas exploration to the highest bidder. Subsequently, in Kasich’s budget proposal, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources would be given authority to lease 200,000 acres of state park land for oil and gas exploration. Faced with a litany of problems related to fracking — even including a house exploding in Ohio — Kasich has fully endorsed drilling in Ohio state parks, saying, “Ohio is not going to walk away from a potential industry.” State Rep. John Adams (R), the House bill’s sponsor, said drilling in state parks can help erase a projected $8 billion budget deficit, and “keep our parks and our lakes up to the standards that the citizens of Ohio want.”

PENNSYLVANIA: After injecting fracking fluid deep into the earth to extract natural gas, the waste that returns becomes a nasty byproduct of saltwater mixed with radioactive materials. Most states require energy companies to inject the waste thousands of feet deep back into the earth — a technique that caused earthquakes in Arkansas. But Pennsylvania, one of the major states at the center of the natural gas boom, dumps the radioactive leftovers directly into rivers and streams, where communities get their drinking water. As a result of the atrocious practice, Pennsylvanians have gotten sick from drinking tap water. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) doesn’t seem to be bothered whatsoever by releasing radioactive waste into rivers, recently saying that he wants to make Pennsylvania “the Texas of the natural gas boom.” In fact, Corbett’s draconian budget cuts funding for environmental oversight, and contains no increases in fines for environmental damages related to fracking. Corbett has even said that the regulation of the natural gas industry has been too aggressive. Not surprisingly, an analysis of Corbett’s campaign contributions has found that he has accepted more money from the natural gas industry than all other Pennsylvania candidates combined.

NORTH CAROLINA: With moratoriums on fracking in Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, and potentially Maryland, state Rep. Mitch Gillespie (R) plans to introduce a bill that would permit fracking in North Carolina. Currently, dating back to rules and regulations put into law in the 1940s, fracking is illegal in North Carolina. But Gillespie wishes to change the law, saying to the House Environment Committee, “It’s my intention to move ahead” with legislation, and natural gas is “a resource” that “North Carolina should be compensated for.” Energy companies are seeking to drill in southern Granville County through Durham, Chatham and Lee counties. But Robin Smith, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ assistant secretary, said that fracking will “endanger water sources in the area,” citing problems that have occurred in Pennsylvania.

TEXAS: Not only is Texas the biggest polluter in the country but it isn’t complying with federal air quality standards. Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, and in 2008, Houston was ranked the fourth worst city for ozone. Texas has not been in compliance with federal air quality standards since 1994, when the state submitted a system of issuing flexible air pollution limits to the EPA — which allowed for a portion of a refinery or chemical plant to emit more pollutants than federal standards authorize as long as the total emissions did not infringe on federal air quality standards. In June 2010, the EPA published its “disapproval” of Texas’ air quality standards, stating that the Texas program “does not meet several national Clean Air Act requirements that help to assure the protection of health and the environment.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and state Republicans responded by filing a lawsuit that challenges the EPA’s ruling. Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples also pushed back against the EPA’s decision, saying, “[u]ltimately, in this process, it is the consumer, American families, that will be picking up the tab for” stronger air quality enforcement. Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s top air official, responded to the agency’s critics, citing that “enforcement of the Clean Air Act has saved lives and allowed the economy to grow.” In fact, the EPA just released a study which concluded that the Clean Air Act will “prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020.”

MAINE: Newly elected Gov. Paul LePage (R) — who infamously told the NAACP to “kiss my butt” and that he would tell President Obama to “go to hell” — announced that he will be trimming dozens of environmental protections in order to make Maine more “business friendly.” LePage will be changing a minimum of 36 environmental laws, including opening up 10 million acres of northern Maine for business development, weakening a new law that that requires manufactures take back and recycle old products, relaxing air emission standards, and replacing the state Board of Environmental Protection with an appeals panel. In another remarkably atrocious move, LePage wants to reverse a ruling that the chemical BPA — which has been linked to learning disabilities in children, obesity, and cancer — should be phased out of children’s products. Thankfully, in a significant policy defeat for LePage, a Maine legislative committee unanimously ruled to ban BPA last week.

MONTANA: Instituted in 1971, the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a “look before you leap” policy, “requiring state agencies to consider the environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of proposals like mines, power plants, [and] subdivisions.” Allowing for public input and deliberation when considering new industrial projects, MEPA is largely considered a success. But state Sen. Chas Vincent (R) has proposed a bill to gut the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), citing that it’s what “venture capitalists” need. Moreover, state Rep. Joe Read (R) has introduced a bill declaring global warming a “natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it,” and that “global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.” In an effort to help business projects tied up in lawsuits, state Republicans have even proposed amending the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment” to a “clean, healthful, and economically productive environment.”

MINNESOTA: State Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R) convinced a committee to amend the House outdoors bill to include a provision that allows the for-profit logging industry to cut trees in Minnesota’s Frontenac and Whitewater state parks. The provision was ultimately taken out of the outdoor spending bill, and Drazkowski expressed regret, saying that black walnut trees — worth up to $5,000 — will be left to “rot on the stump.” But the fate of 24 existing state parks and plans for the development of Lake Vermilion State Park are still on the cutting block as the House and Senate begin negotiating their outdoor spending bills.

These assaults on the environment have very little to do with budget shortfalls, but they do conveniently provide a platform of austerity where state Republicans can justify their ideological attacks on behalf of corporate polluters — who are not just stripping states’ natural resources but also the health and the jobs of their citizens. The Republican attacks on the environment are just the tip of the iceberg, though. Koch’s ALEC is underwriting radical-right legislation across the country, having major influence in efforts to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, helped draft Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration law, and is the major driving force behind anti-union bills in many states. In short, state Republicans have fallen ill to a larger pattern — carefully orchestrated and implemented by Koch’s ALEC and AFP — where the environment and the safety of their citizens are sacrificed, in favor of lining the pockets of the wealthy.

-Paul Breer

With Republican super-majorities in the New Hampshire senate and house, the Koch front groups American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) have carefully orchestrated a campaign to remove the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

In 2008, New Hampshire joined RGGI, which is a market-based regulatory program that cuts greenhouse gas emissions and has created 1,130 jobs as a result of the energy efficient benefits. While cleaning the environment, RGGI has cumulatively generated $28.2 million in revenue for New Hampshire.

Koch Industries, because they have manufacturing plants in the Northeast and release 300 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution every year, stand to profit greatly by repealing RGGI. To increase their bottom line, ALEC — a Koch-funded group that drafts model legislation for conservative state legislators — has written legislation to repeal regional climate programs:

WHEREAS, there has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increasing costs of doing business in the State of ______;

WHEREAS, forcing business, industry, and food producers to reduce carbon emissions through government mandates and cap-and-trade policies under consideration for the regional climate initiative will increase the cost of doing business, push companies to do business with other states or nations, and increase consumer costs for electricity, fuel, and food;

Compare to the anti-RGGI bill sponsored and introduced to the House by state Rep. Richard Barry (R):

I. There has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increased costs of doing business in New Hampshire.

II. Businesses, industries, and food producers have been forced to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a result of government mandates and cap and trade policies through the regional greenhouse gas initiative, which has increased the cost of doing business, pushed companies to do business with other states or nations, and increased consumer costs for electricity, fuel, and food.

When asked to explain the language in the bill at a public hearing, Barry nervously said that the bill’s sponsors did not write that particular section. State Rep. James Garrity (R), Chair of the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee, responded by saying that “[o]ur committee does not feel that editorials belong in laws.”

After ALEC wrote the bill, Koch’s Americans For Prosperity began orchestrating broad campaigns to drum up support for the legislation:

– Koch’s AFP flooded New Hampshire with robocalls in support of the bill to repeal RGGI.

– At an event sponsored by ALEC, AFP Vice-President for Policy Phil Kepern publicly voiced his opposition of NH’s membership in RGGI. New Hampshire AFP Director Corey Lewandoski followed suit, saying, “It does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases because jobs and businesses just move to other states.”

ALEC’s text in the repeal bill was ultimately dropped, but the amended legislation to remove New Hampshire from RGGI overwhelmingly passed the House last week. If the bill makes it through the Senate and overtakes Gov. John Lynch’s veto, New Hampshire will be the first state to pull out of RGGI, threatening the wildly successful clean energy program’s future viability for the entire region.

There is a glimmer of hope: Not every state Republican is under the thrall of the Koch brothers. On Monday, state Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Seacoast) broke party lines, saying she wanted to “save the standards for carbon emissions.”

See the Center for American Progress Fund’s new report on the Koch brothers empire.

-Paul Breer

Newt Gingrich really doesn’t like it when Barack Obama takes his advice. It’s not just true of intervention with Libya — it’s also the case with fighting global warming pollution. In short, Newt was for carbon cap and trade, until Obama became president:

February 15, 2007: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]

April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]

Gingrich’s full record on global warming is actually a series of epic flip-flops over more than two decades, with his positions mostly coinciding with whether the party holding the presidency is a Republican or a Democrat. Since 1989, when Gingrich supported aggressive climate action against “wasteful fossil fuel use,” until today, as he proposes abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 353 ppm to 391 ppm (from 26 percent above pre-industrial levels to 40 percent above), and the five-year global mean temperature anomaly has nearly doubled from 0.3°C to 0.56°C.

FLIP

FLOP

FLIP

FLOP

Yesterday, while the House Republican controlled Energy and Power Subcommittee passed the Upton-Inhofe bill to kill greenhouse pollution rules, a commissioned report by the Navy concluded that climate change will present national security and economic challenges:

U.S. allies and their militaries will face national security challenges similar to those faced by the United States and its naval forces as a result of climate change. [...] Among the many manifestations of climate change projected for the next several decades, sea-level rise is both highly certain to occur and highly certain to come with economic costs. [...] As a result of reduced multiyear ice, the Arctic Ocean is rapidly acquiring the types of maritime activities in the summer months that normally occur elsewhere in the world’s ice-free oceans.

The Department of Defense has also found that global warming poses a threat to national security, and concluded that climate-induced crises could destabilize entire regions and increase the power of terrorist organizations.

The military, as opposed to the climate denying Republicans, have realized that respected scientific bodies across the world have unequivocally concluded that global warming is occuring. Navy Rear Admiral David Tilley, a meteorologist and Navy oceanographer, has said that global warming is real, “an issue that affects our national security,” and the “greatest challenge of the 21st century.”

-Paul Breer

In the midst of the 1976 energy crisis, President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House’s West Wing. The symbolic installation was taken down by the Reagan administration, only to be restored years later by President Obama.

Likewise, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon becoming Speaker of the House in 2007, launched an initiative called “Green the Capitol,” which replaced Styrofoam and plasticware in the Capitol cafeteria with cups made of cornstarch and recyclable utensils. This January, following in Reagan’s misguided footsteps, the Republican-controlled House Administration Committee cut key parts of Pelosi’s “Green” initiative, and ordered the switch of recyclable materials to non-biodegradable Styrofoam to be used in the House cafeterias.

Yesterday, in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republican leaders, nine Democrats wrote that the health of Americans are being jeopardized because Styrofoam is a known carcinogen:

Over 20 years ago, McDonalds and other fast food restaurants replaced polystyrene foam with recyclable and paperboard containers. More than 100 cities have also chosen to ban polystyrene foam for health and environmental reasons. Adopting the same standard is the least we can do. …The International Association for Research on Cancer classified styrene as a potential human carcinogen.

Eliminating polystyrene-related health impacts will result in fewer lost work days and lower heath insurance costs for the House and its staff. This benefit alone should outweigh any cost savings from using polystyrene containers.

The irresponsibility of the decision to use polystyrene foam without considering other options is all the more egregious because the cafeteria is not merely used by House members and our staffers. The health of constituents and visitors to the Hill who eat in the cafeteria will be impacted by this short-sighted decision.

The House Republicans’ decision to reinstate Styrofoam is only part of their egregious environmental agenda. Every House Republican last week voted against stripping the five largest oil companies of taxpayer funded subsidies — which would have saved tens of billions of dollars. Even more indicative of the Republicans’ atrocious environmental agenda is the near unanimous support of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would overturn the EPA’s finding that heat-trapping gases and carbon dioxide carry a severe threat to the environment and public health. The measure is expected to pass the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power today.

– Paul Breer

Yesterday afternoon, Mike Huckabee denied his long-standing support for a mandatory cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse pollution. The former Arkansas governor, Republican presidential candidate, and Fox News personality strongly attacked the idea that he has ever supported cap-and-trade policy in a blog post on his political fundraising site Huck PAC:

In a recent internet post, a contributor makes the claim that I supported cap-and-trade in late 2007 while running for President.

To put it simply, that’s just not true. . . . This kind of mandatory energy policy would have a horrible impact on this nation’s job market. I never did support and never would support it – period.

However, when he spoke at the Clean Air Cool Planet conference in Manchester, NH, on October 13, 2007, Huckabee was unequivocal in his support for “cap and trade of carbon emissions”:

The one thing all of us have a responsibility to do is to recognize that climate change is here, it’s real. What we have to do is stop pointing fingers about who’s at fault and saying whose responsibility it is to fix it and recognize it’s all our fault and it’s all our responsibility to fix it.

…

I also support cap and trade of carbon emissions. And I was disappointed that the Senate rejected a carbon counting system to measure the sources of emissions, because that would have been the first and the most important step toward implementing true cap and trade.

Watch it:

As Hot Air’s AllahPundit discovered, Huckabee’s support for cap and trade was picked up by “Bloomberg News, the Council on Foreign Relations, environmentalist websites, and even his own fan pages.”

Huckabee concluded his 2007 speech by repeating a metaphor from his book From Hope to Higher Ground, excoriating “thermometer” politicians who change their positions based on polls and popularity, instead of “thermostat” politicians who stand by their convictions and provide true leadership:

Leadership comes down to whether you want to be thermometers or thermostats. And that’s probably a term most of you in this room care about, thermometers and thermostats. Let’s remember this: a thermometer can read temperature and reflect what it is. It just can’t do anything about it.

Unfortunately, a lot of leadership in this country is like a thermometer. Polls will be taken, temperature will be gauged, and then speeches will reflect. What we do not need in this country is thermometer leadership. What we need is thermostat leadership. The thermostat reads the temperature as to what it is, but its primary purpose of the thermostat is to seek to adjust it to what it ought to be. And I would suggest, that regardless of your politics, that you insist that people commit to being more than thermometers, and they commit to being thermostats, to help to adjust not just the climate of this earth, but the direction of this country. Not accepting what it is, but leading to what it ought to be.

The Mike Huckabee of 2010 has evidently chosen to abandon the conviction-based approach of the Mike Huckabee of 2007.

(H/T Dave Weigel)