In the current budgetary environment, the United States can no longer afford to give away billions of dollars every year to corporations earning billions of dollars in profits and costing American taxpayers twice: at the pump and through the tax code. We urge the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to consider eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels as an excellent source of deficit reducing savings. According to a coalition of organizations, eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuels industry could reduce our national debt by up to $122 billion over ten years.

Welch and Blumenauer are members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Their letter adds their support to the request made by leaders of 52 national and state organizations on Oct. 5 to the super committee to end “government handouts to the oil, coal and gas industries.”

The list of subsidies includes:

$43.5 billion in federal tax subsidies to oil and gas companies
$2.5 billion in federal tax subsidies to coal companies
$1.3 billion tax credit for refineries
$9.5 billion in royalty-free oil and gas leases
$52 billion in “last in, first out” accounting for inventories, a tax credit that disproportionately helps the oil and gas industry
$10.5 billion dual capacity tax credit, which also largely benefits oil and gas companies

Ending these subsidies would not only help restore fiscal health to the nation, but also take a small step towards repairing the health of the planet’s climate. The fiscal committee needs to go farther and place an explicit price on carbon pollution so that fossil companies pay for their pollution, instead of future generations.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

Rather than acting as fair arbiters of TransCanada’s application to build a massive pipeline across environmentally sensitive areas of the United States, State Department officials appear to have acted as little more than cheerleaders for the company’s bid.

Blumenauer’s co-signers are Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). They also express concern that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) developed by a TransCanada contractor for the State Department is flawed and inadequate.

“Given the significant risks of this pipeline route to our nation’s precious groundwater resources, and the serious questions recently raised regarding the impartiality of the EIS process, we encourage the Department of State to reconsider the decision not to evaluate alternative pipeline routes, and request that you find this proposed route not in the national interest,” they conclude.

Activists are planning an #OccupyStateDept protest and rally beginning tonight and continuing through Friday, when a public hearing on the pipeline will be held in Washington, DC.

Text of letter:

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
Harry S. Truman Building
2201 C Street N.W.
Washington DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the lynchpin of protection of our nation’s natural resources for the health and safety of our citizens and the national economy. The heart of this process is the serious consideration that must be given to alternatives to the proposed project.

Recently-released email communications between State Department officials and lobbyists for TransCanada regarding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline raise serious concerns that this consideration has not been given. Rather than acting as fair arbiters of TransCanada’s application to build a massive pipeline across environmentally sensitive areas of the United States, State Department officials appear to have acted as little more than cheerleaders for the company’s bid.

Any manipulation of the EIS process taints its outcome, and makes the final product unacceptable as the basis for a finding of national interest. As members of the House of Representatives who are concerned about the impacts to the Nebraska Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer of the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline, we request that you find the proposed route not in the national interest.

The Final EIS did not adequately consider alternatives to the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline. There are at least three reasonable alternatives that should have been considered. A northern alternative would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer and is shorter than the proposed route. Yet, the Final EIS did not consider this alternative because of potential impacts to groundwater in North and South Dakota, but failed to compare those groundwater resources to the Ogallala, which provides 30% of the water used for irrigation in the United States. The only economic justification was a single email from TransCanada saying the slightly increased cost of this route would not be economical, but it provided no economic analysis to support that claim. A southern-only alternative connects to an existing pipeline in Cushing, Oklahoma, which is the current bottleneck for oil travelling from the Canadian border to the Gulf refineries. This alternative allows excess oil in the Midwest to reach the Gulf. The last is the alternative explicitly required under NEPA – the no action alternative. The Final EIS simply assumes that if this pipeline were not built, there would be other projects that would have the same impact, so the “no action” alternative was not analyzed. This is a serious weakness of the entire EIS, because consideration of the no action alternative allows the decision-maker and the public to better understand the impacts of the proposed project.

Groundwater impacts are potentially devastating to the Ogallala Aquifer, but the Final EIS did not adequately assess those risks. A University of Nebraska study found the potential for 91 significant spills over the pipeline’s lifetime, and no study evaluated the potential impact of a spill into the specific geology of the Ogallala Aquifer. TransCanada claims that it has plans to install sensors to detect leaks along the pipeline. However, independent scientists are concerned that the sensors will not detect small leaks, which can accumulate over time. For instance, in merely the first year the existing Keystone pipeline has been in operation, there have been 14 releases of more than five gallons, and one spill that released 400 barrels of oil. The Final EIS does not adequately assess these risks in the context of the more complicated pipeline through the aquifer. In its comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS, EPA expressed concern about potential risks, and recommended that the Final EIS evaluate other routes in more detail, and more clearly explain the reasons for not considering other routes in the original analysis, but the Final EIS does not do so.

The State Department’s failure to adequately consider real alternatives to the proposed pipeline route, including serious consideration of the no action alternative is unacceptable. Consideration of alternatives, including the no action alternative, is explicitly required in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(iii) and 5 C.F.R. 1502.14). To make matters worse, recently released emails raise the worrying impression that the process of developing the Environmental Impact Statement may not have been objective. These emails, released through a Freedom of Information Act Request, display an alarmingly close relationship between State Department officials overseeing the process and TransCanada representatives. In addition, TransCanada is a “major client” of the contractor hired to prepare the EIS for the State Department.[1]These relationships suggest that the process may not have been objective, and this decision is too important to be clouded by even the appearance of impropriety.

The current proposed route is not in the national interest. Agriculture in Nebraska, and the United States as a whole, depends on the Ogallala Aquifer for clean, fresh water to grow staple crops for the United States and the world. A spill into that aquifer would put that supply in danger, and devastate farmers and the rural economy. The Ogallala Aquifer is a national treasure and a resource of critical national importance, and should not needlessly be put at risk when there are alternative routes that would avoid those risks.

As Members of Congress, we are bound to protect the national interest of the United States and its citizens. Given the significant risks of this pipeline route to our nation’s precious groundwater resources, and the serious questions recently raised regarding the impartiality of the EIS process, we encourage the Department of State to reconsider the decision not to evaluate alternative pipeline routes, and request that you find this proposed route not in the national interest.

Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

Barbara Lee
Member of Congress

Tim Ryan
Member of Congress

Jackie Speier
Member of Congress

Peter Welch
Member of Congress

Steve Cohen
Member of Congress

Maurice Hinchey
Member of Congress

Earl Blumenauer deserves major props for having inserted a provision into the TARP bill last fall calling for a comprehensive “carbon audit” of the U.S. tax code.

This is important for a lot of reasons. One is that you have people like Ross Douthat out there saying they’re worried that even if anthropogenic climate change is real, mitigating it may not pass cost-benefit scrutiny. I don’t think that claim is nearly as plausible as those who put it forward like to make, but it is true that the costs of emissions reductions are an important consideration. But what’s frustrating about the conversation is that when we talk about costs we oftentimes just assume that all we can do is take the baseline policy environment we have, and then plop emissions reductions on top of it. As if the pre-existing status quo already constituted optimal growth policy or something.

But of course that’s not right. The American Clean Energy and Security Act would reduce emissions at remarkably low cost but in part the cost would be low because the reduction targets aren’t all that ambitious. It would be an excellent start—indeed, it would be the single most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world—but it will be necessary to go further. And to get deeper cuts, you really need to wring the inefficiencies out of the current system. Removing economically distorting tax subsidies makes the economy grow faster rather than slower. And removing distorting tax subsidies that encourage greenhouse gas pollution obviously reduces greenhouse gas pollution. So scouring the tax code for win-win opportunities is enormously useful.

And Megan McConville writes about a new federal initiative he’s involved with:

Last night in Washington, DC, the Brookings Institution and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) kicked off Cities for Cycling, a new effort to catalog, promote and implement the world’s best bicycle transportation practices in American municipalities. As Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program Director Bruce Katz put it in his introduction, the event was host to a rock star panel, with Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, and David Byrne, former frontman of the band Talking Heads and long-time cycling advocate.

At any rate, if you bike and you don’t live in Portland, you really ought to get in touch with your congressman and register your existence with his or her office. It’s great that Blumenauer leads on this, but there’s no city in America whose congressional delegation is indifferent to the state of its highways, and there are many towns and cities all across the country whose elected officials are indifferent to the state of their bicycle infrastructure.

Hot in my inbox, a statement from Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who represents Portland in Congress and is one of the main leaders on transportation policy in the House, responding to George Will’s cranky anti-Portland column:

“In his article, Mr. Will proves that he is mired in a one-dimensional past, one that the city of Portland has successfully overcome. He opposes policies that will provide Americans with more choices while saving them money, creating jobs and protecting the environment. In Portland we have been able to increase productivity, boost our economy, and invest in our city’s resources by taking a well-rounded approach to transportation. Secretary LaHood shares this comprehensive view on transportation options for our nation—its not about behavior modification its about giving Americans the freedom to choose more than just the highway or byway.

Rather than pontificate about practicality from a far, I challenge Mr. Will to come experience Portland, and then debate the facts, the future and the visions we offer. I am proud to defend the Portland model so painstakingly developed and implemented over the last 1/3 of a century. Maybe he will understand why young well educated people move here without jobs and older, well established business and professional people won’t leave for jobs that pay more. We will be happy to buy his plane ticket and give him a bottle of Oregon pinot to die for.

I’m mostly wondering what Newsweek intends to do about the large, material factual error in Will’s column. When Will penned an error-ridden Washington Post column on climate change, the Post steadfastly refused to issue a correction and key Post personnel defended Will’s right to lie in the Post’s pages. Strangely, during the weeks of ensuing controversy the Post ran several opinion pieces that, accurately, pointed out that Will was misleading people and some of the Post’s news personnel offered similar comments. Still, Will’s editors and the Post opinion section continued to stand solidly behind the principle that accuracy isn’t important to them—at least as long as George Will is the author.

Newsweek is an editorially separate entity, but also owned by The Washington Post Company. Perhaps the Post’s decision to greenlight lying led Will to believe he could get away with similar misrepresentations in Newsweek. I’ll be interested to see if that proves to be the case.

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

Watch it:

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), later in the evening, demolished Bachmann for “making things up on the floor of the House”:

My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.

Furthermore, attempting to repeat the goofy denier talking point that carbon dioxide makes up only a fraction of the atmospheric content and thus isn’t of concern, Bachmann errs wildly. She claims that carbon dioxide makes up “three percent of the atmosphere,” when in fact it only comprises 0.04% — off by a factor of a hundred. As Blumenauer pointed out, CO2 levels are significantly higher than they’ve been throughout human history. Only a hundred years ago, CO2 concentrations were only 0.03%. Of course, when it comes to the greenhouse effect, only global warming gases are relevant. And carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas.

But Bachmann hasn’t ever been one to let her political rants be constrained by the facts.

Transcript:

BACHMANN: But people talk about cap and tax and they aren’t sure exactly what we’re talking about. Let’s get back to step one. What is the problem? Why do we have to have this tax in the first place?

It’s about carbon dioxide.

Well, what is carbon dioxide? Let’s just go to a fundamental question.

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful!

But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.

And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth. Well we’re told the crux of this problem is human activity. It’s humans that are creating more carbon dioxide!

Is that true, or is that false?

Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere that’s in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total.

What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and it’s only three percent of Earth’s atmosphere, what part is human activity?

Human activity contributes perhaps three percent of the three percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that’s in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s so negligible — it’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent — that it can hardly be — be quantified.

…

BLUMENAUER: My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.