Climate and energy

In Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack highlights the many benefits to Kansas farmers under a cap-and-trade system:

Kansas farmers would gain from cap-and-trade
By Tom Vilsack

Throughout history, America’s farmers and ranchers have embraced the opportunities presented by science to improve productivity and make our country the breadbasket of the world. Today, rural America has the opportunity to once again embrace science and lead efforts to build a clean-energy economy, achieve energy independence, and combat global climate change.

The community of Greensburg is doing just that with support from the Obama administration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced a $17.4 million loan to help build 10 wind turbines near Greensburg that will supply renewable energy, create green jobs and support the local economy. Greensburg stands out as an example of the promise and potential for farming and ranching communities across rural America to embrace the clean-energy economy.

I know America’s farmers are concerned about how climate-change legislation will impact their bottom line. That’s why we had top economists at USDA prepare an analysis of the costs and benefits to American agriculture. The centerpiece of the legislation is the creation of a market that will offer opportunities for nonpolluting sectors, such as agriculture, to sell offsets to industries that emit greenhouse gases.

USDA’s economists found that the opportunities for farmers and ranchers in a cap-and-trade program will outweigh the potential costs. While a Northern Plains wheat producer might see an increase of 80 cents per acre in costs of production by 2020 due to higher fuel prices, the same farmer could earn an additional $6.40 per acre in offsets by adopting no-till practices. And it’s quite possible that he could do even better as we develop science that will increase the production of homegrown energy and he sells his wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol.

Even under conservative assumptions, the benefits to American agriculture will keep pace with the costs during the initial years of the program. Over the long term, the benefits will far outweigh costs, growing to almost $15 billion to $20 billion in 2040-50. At that rate, agricultural offsets could be worth more than 5 percent of today’s total agricultural sales.

To be sure, not every farmer will be affected in the same way by the climate-change legislation. But USDA, as a partner and advocate for farmers and ranchers, will help smooth the transition. Our conservation programs will assist landowners in adopting new technologies and stewardship practices that will be critical to a successful offsets market.

Climate-change legislation is a win for everyone. For American agriculture, the income benefits will outweigh costs, particularly over the long term. For rural Americans, it will help create new economic opportunities and green-energy jobs. For the American people, we will cut our dependency on foreign oil and combat the effects of global climate change.

Once again, America’s farmers, ranchers and rural communities will embrace science and new opportunities to help lead the way for the rest of the nation and the world. Our economic and environmental future depends on it.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

Last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency sent its final endangerment finding proposal to the White House for review.  This finding would allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation.   The Office of Management and Budget has 90 days to review the proposed finding.

Many industries would rather see cap and trade legislation pass this year, than be left to EPA regulation.  According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, these industries believe that EPA regulation will be costlier and less effective.

EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House
Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:23pm EST

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

“We sent the final proposal over to OMB on Friday,” Jackson said in an interview at her EPA headquarters’ office.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.

Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

Jackson said the government is facing a “hard deadline” of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.

She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.

___________________________________________________________________

Some Utilities Push Congress to Act on Carbon Emissions

By REBECCA SMITH and STEPHEN POWER

Utility executives are stepping up calls for legislation to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, fearing that if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will establish rules that would be costlier and less effective.

The executives’ desire for prompt action is colliding with Washington’s focus on other issues and growing reluctance to tamper with power-industry costs during a weak economy.

An American Electric Power coal plant, with a new carbon-capture unit, in New Haven, W.Va. Most power companies don’t think any effective, affordable technology exists to capture and store their carbon-dioxide emissions.

Some executives said last week they think intervention by the Environmental Protection Agency would be doomed because, for the most part, all the agency can do is order firms to install “best available control technology.” Most power companies don’t think any effective, affordable technology exists to capture and store carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.

Most power companies prefer so-called cap-and-trade legislation to EPA regulation because the former is expected to give them greater flexibility on how to comply and thus cost them less than EPA regulation, they say.

Still, plenty in the utility sector continue to oppose legislation to cap carbon emissions.

Under cap-and-trade legislation — which the House has passed but the Senate hasn’t vote on yet — the government would require companies to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. Over time, the government would issue fewer permits, bringing emissions down gradually while allowing companies to trade the permits among themselves. Companies that find it too expensive to reduce their own emissions could pay other firms to reduce theirs. They could also invest in activities that offset carbon-dioxide emissions, such as planting trees.

The EPA would be “forced to pursue a technology road map that doesn’t exist,” warned Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., Charlotte, N.C., who also has lobbied the Hill repeatedly to pass a bill.

John Rowe, head of Exelon Corp., Chicago, said that EPA regulation would be “more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade.”

The executives said they want legislation — and soon — because utilities need to make billions of dollars of investments in coming years and risk bad choices in a legislative void.

Republicans have largely opposed a Senate bill as economically ruinous, and some have indicated that they won’t be pressured into voting for a bill, even if the EPA moves forward with regulations on power plants.

“The actions the EPA has taken and its plans to regulate greenhouse gases are a serious concern,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). “However, EPA’s actions should not scare Congress into passing bad legislation.”

An EPA spokeswoman said Friday, “We agree that we need Congress to step in and enact comprehensive and integrated energy reform as quickly as possible.”

Even some executives who have opposed bills in the House and Senate say they would rather have legislation than EPA oversight. David Ratcliffe, CEO of Southern Co., Atlanta, said Friday that he would prefer legislation because “the EPA process is not designed to deal with this complex an issue.” But, he said, he would still take EPA regulation “over a bad legislative framework.”

The Senate has been consumed recently with health-care legislation, and isn’t expected to pass a climate bill this year. The Democratic party’s moderates — who tend to wield more influence in the Senate than House — are moving to assert more influence over the issue.

Many in the power industry still hope that legislation will be passed that is technologically neutral and would embrace any method of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions — including nuclear power.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

This past week, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold visited Manhattan and Lawrence to talk to Kansans about how climate and energy issues affect our state, and to explore the way we’re talking about these issues amongst ourselves.

The Post profiled Nancy Jackson’s talk as part of K-State’s Lou Douglas Lecture Series, and CEP’s focus on the many solutions we have here in Kansas.

Environmental groups at odds over new tack in climate fight
Some favor playing down threat, focusing on bill’s positives

By David A. Fahrenthold
Friday, November 6, 2009

MANHATTAN, KAN. — A curious debate has broken out among American environmental groups, as the Senate balkily starts to focus on the threat of climate change.

Is this really the time to talk about the threat of climate change?

Now, some groups have muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers and rising seas. Not because they’ve stopped caring about them — but because they’re trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill’s non-environmental side benefits, such as “green” jobs and reduced oil imports.

Smaller environmental groups, however, say this is the wrong moment to ease up on the scare because that might send the signal that a weaker bill is acceptable.

At the heart of this intra-green disagreement is a behemoth of an unanswered question: Even after years of apocalyptic warnings about climate change, how much will Americans really sacrifice to fight it?

“It’s a lack of faith in the American public,” said Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona nonprofit, talking about the light-on-climate ads used by bigger groups. “If the scientists, the environmentalists in our country do their jobs, and explain the test of climate change, the public will come along.”

“Instead of doing that job,” Suckling said, “we’re running away from it.”

Playing down the threat from a warming climate may come with a cost for environmental groups, if it appears to give senators license to weaken measures aimed at helping the environment, such as limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Already, the push for energy “made in America” has given industry an opening to press for things some green groups don’t want: more offshore drilling in U.S. waters and more support for the American coal business.

Lou Hayden of the American Petroleum Institute said his group does not debate environmentalists about climate science. But he said it will fight environmentalists on the jobs question, saying that the climate bill would kill more than it would create.

“Is it easier to respond to the jobs [argument] and to the kind of operational economic questions? Yes,” he said.
‘Beginning stages’

This summer, the House passed a bill that would limit emissions by 2020, using a complex system called “cap and trade” that would allow companies to buy and sell allowances to pollute.

But this week has shown that the Senate will be a much harder sell. On Thursday, a Senate committee voted 11 to 1 to pass a climate measure based loosely on the House legislation, with Republicans boycotting the vote. But a day earlier, a trio of senators said they were coming up with a separate climate bill — making the one passed Thursday somewhat irrelevant.

“We’re just at the beginning stages here,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of the original bill and one of the senators working on the new measure.

Polling over the past decade has shown that solid majorities of Americans consider global warming real, and a significant threat, though few call it a top priority. Washington Post-ABC News polls this year have shown that a steady but thin majority of Americans, 52 percent in the most recent survey, favor cap-and-trade.

One poll done this fall for the Pew Environment Group found 76 percent of likely 2010 voters think global warming is happening now or will happen in the future, and 71 percent called it a serious threat. But another survey, done about the same time by the Pew Research Center, caused a stir after it found that the number of people who saw solid evidence that warming is happening had shrunk from 71 percent to 57 percent since April 2008.

Now, given the slow progress in the Senate, some green groups say they want to broaden their appeal beyond committed environmentalists, to the skeptical, the agnostic and the distracted.

That means minimizing doomsday predictions and focusing on positives: A climate bill will create jobs in the renewable-energy industry and keep money away from oil-state villains.
No more ‘warming’

In 2006, for example, a well-known TV spot from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Ad Council showed global warming as a speeding locomotive bearing down on a little girl.

This year, however, the train is gone. So is the word “warming.” Instead, one spot from the EDF shows solar panels and windmills, while an announcer talks about jobs and a reduced dependence on foreign oil.

“We need more renewable energy that’s made in America and works for America, creating 1.7 million jobs,” the narrator says. The spot doesn’t mention the word “climate” and instead talks about cutting “carbon pollution,” using a phrase common in recent ads by several groups.

“It’s two words that are pretty easily understandable,” said Daniel Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I mean, scientists like to talk about ‘greenhouse gases.’ Nobody knows what that means.”

On Tuesday night, climate activist Nancy Jackson addressed one of the most climate-skeptical audiences in the country: Kansans. She was speaking to college students here in Manhattan — a town where one religious leader was able to draw congregants to screenings of “An Inconvenient Truth” only by passing out Nerf balls, so they could hurl them at the image of Al Gore.

“Take climate change off the table, okay?” Jackson said, after reciting evidence that the climate really is changing. “You don’t have to buy it for everything I’m about to say, because everything we do [to combat climate change] is a good idea for at least three other reasons.”

She told the students that Kansas has an abundance of wind, sun and crops such as corn and prairie grasses — all potential sources of renewable power. The message worked, at least on 21-year-old student Matthew Brandt. He said he doesn’t believe in climate change, but — after hearing Jackson’s talk — he was interested in windmills.

“I plan to have a wind turbine on my property” after graduation, Brandt said. “I figure it’s a good investment.”

The World Wildlife Fund, one of the groups critical of the good-news approach to climate advocacy, is running its own ads underlining fears about what climate change will bring. In Montana, the ads talk about increased wildfires. In Indiana, it’s floods. In Maine, stronger storms.

“The reality is, we need to save ourselves,” said Carter S. Roberts, the group’s president. “The connection between an intact planet and people’s well-being . . . is the part of the equation that’s missing.”

-posted by Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org

Researchers at the University of Kansas are at the forefront of two exciting solutions for our energy future.

The University just announced today that the Kansas Geological Survey will receive a $5 million grant for carbon sequestration research.  From the press release:

Kansas Geological Survey receives $5 million grant to study CO2 storage.

LAWRENCE — The Kansas Geological Survey based at the University of Kansas has received a nearly $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to study the feasibility of storing carbon dioxide underground.

Awarded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the grant is the largest ever received by the Kansas Geological Survey. It will be used to determine whether a largely depleted oil and gas field in south-central Kansas and an underlying saline aquifer can permanently and safely sequester carbon dioxide from stationary sources such as electric, cement, ethanol and fertilizer plants.

Click here for the rest of the press release.

And KU’s algae biofuel project was profiled in today’s Lawrence Journal World:

Yesterday, the American Corn Growers Association released their statement on US climate and energy legislation – calling for the Senate to pass legislation this year.

The statement highlights the many potential benefits for farmers, including protecting ethanol producers and providing carbon sequestration opportunities.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4, 2009–

Keith Bolin, President of the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) again called upon the U.S. Senate to complete its work on the pending climate legislation this year. He also urged a united voice by all farm and rural organizations to support the climate legislation as well as the pending energy bill in the Senate.

“Agriculture must not continue to keep their heads in the sand regarding climate change,” said Bolin. “Farmers and ranchers will pay a huge price if we fail to take action. Other nations around the globe are acting now, including China, and the U.S. must help lead the way.”

“If agriculture continues to ignore sound science regarding the effects of increased greenhouse gasses, and our climate becomes increasingly erratic, to the point of even worsening production problems around the globe, the United States will be seen as obstructionists to a global effort that had great potential to help sustain the environment that family farmers depend on,” added Bolin. Failure to act swiftly on this issue will result in a tragedy that our children’s children will have to endure. The question then will be; why did we not act?”

Bolin added that production agriculture has many opportunities in properly drafted climate change legislation, including;

· The opportunity to build demand for renewable energy from the farm allowing increased completion for our production,

· The opportunity to head off EPA regulation, of greenhouse gas emissions, and imposing unfair requirements on the biofuels industry that holds biofuel producers responsible for international changes in land use,

· The opportunity to keep agriculture off the list of regulated carbon users,

· The opportunity to capitalize on agriculture’s great carbon sequestration potential,

· The opportunity to play a key role in reducing the impacts of climate change that are already negatively affecting agriculture.

“ACGA has worked for years to develop sound policies for renewable energy from farms and forests, including ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass, as well as wind and solar generated electricity,” said Bolin. “I again wish to personally applaud the efforts of Chairmen Waxman, Markey and Peterson in the U.S. House of Representatives for their leadership and initiative in passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) this past June. ACGA now calls upon the U.S. Senate to advance both their climate and energy bills and we sincerely hope to see the legislation sent to President Obama for enactment before the end of the year.”

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

As China’s enormous economy goes green and develops more wind manufacturing,  this may become a more common debate amongst policymakers.  These clean-tech dollars can stay in the U.S. and help re-energize our own manufacturing economies, argues Senator Schumer.

The Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups agrees.

The Blue Green Alliance  released a report this week, projecting 850,000 manufacturing jobs in the U.S. that could result from clean energy legislation being considered in Washington.

From the AP:

By H. JOSEF HEBERT (AP)

WASHINGTON — A Democratic senator is calling on the Obama administration to reject an expected request for federal economic stimulus money as part of a $1.5 billion West Texas wind energy project because he says it will generate Chinese, not American, jobs.

The U.S.-China venture, announced last week, would erect 240 huge Chinese-manufactured wind turbines on 36,000 acres in West Texas, with the Export-Import Bank of China committed to handle most of the financing.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the project reportedly may also be seeking 30 percent funding from economic stimulus grants from the Energy Department — funds he said would used to buy turbines and other components made in a Chinese plant.

“The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling,” Schumer wrote in a letter to be sent Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The senator urged Chu to reject any request for funds from the Texas project.

“The purpose of the (stimulus program) was to jump start the economy to create and save jobs — American jobs,” the senator wrote. “Yet the Texas wind farm project would create an estimated 2,000-3,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs in China. … American taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance those Chinese jobs.”

A draft of the letter was provided late Wednesday to The Associated Press.

The project, announced a week ago, is a joint venture of China’s Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas, and a private equity firm, U.S. Renewable Energy Group. It would be the largest renewable energy investment made by China in the United States.

Under the agreement, A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd. of Shenyang, China, would be the exclusive provider of 240 2.5-megawatt wind turbines for the 600-megawatt wind farm, which would produce enough electricity to serve 180,000 homes.

Project officials could not be immediately reached for comment on the senators’ concerns.

In a news release when the project was announced Oct. 29, Ed Cunningham, USREG’s managing partner, said the wind farm would “create new high-paying jobs on both sides of the Pacific.”

Cappy McGarr, the group’s managing partner, said that in addition to the Chinese financing, the project expected to tap U.S. stimulus money earmarked for development of jobs in the renewable energy industry.

Schumer said the federal stimulus funding should be provide only for wind projects where major components, including wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States.

Chu frequently has expressed concern that China and European countries have overtaken the United States in the commercial development and production of clean energy technologies, even in some cases where the technologies originally were developed in the United States.

While turbine production has been dominated by largely European manufacturers, Schumer maintained that U.S. plants are capable of making the products. “U.S. wind farms financed with stimulus money should be buying American-built turbines and parts,” maintained Schumer.

posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

Yesterday, as reported in USA today, a new study revealed that 84% of top economists believe that global warming poses serious risks to the economy.

The study, called Economists &Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions, was released by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University.

The survey, administered to 144 of the nation’s top economists, also found that:

- 75% agreed or strongly agreed that “uncertainty associated with the environmental and economic effects of greenhouse gas emissions increases the value of emission controls, assuming some level of risk‐aversion.”

- Agriculture was the domestic economic sector most identified as “likely to be negatively affected by climate change,” with 86% of respondents selecting this sector.

- 91.6% preferred or strongly preferred “market‐based mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap‐and‐trade system” over command‐and‐control regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- 80.6% preferred auctioning carbon allowances rather than freely distributing allowances.

For the rest of the findings, the pdf of the study can be found here.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

Never a dull moment with the  “Kerry-Boxer” climate and energy bill.  Although it moved out of committee today, Senator Kerry has made moves to develop a separate, compromise package that gives more benefits to the oil and nuclear industries.  This second track of negotiations may change the shape of the final bill.

The first – a Wall Street Journal article describing the 10-1 vote in Senator Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Commitee.

The second- a Washington Post rundown of the negotiations between Senator Kerry (D-Mass) Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).  Their aim:  A compromise bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate.

WSJ: Climate Bill Clears Senate Committee 10-1

By SIOBHAN HUGHES

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee cleared its version of a climate and energy bill, despite a Republican boycott of the vote and a “no” from powerful Montana Democrat Max Baucus.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s 10-1 vote to approve the climate proposal may have little long term significance in shaping the final bill. Negotiations to shape a Senate climate bill have already moved beyond the committee and its chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) is working with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman to develop a compromise package that would give more benefits to the oil and nuclear-power industries.

Republican members of the committee boycotted the vote to protest a lack of a complete analysis of its potential economic impact. Republicans have called the Senate climate measure and a similar measure passed by the House of Representatives a “tax” that the country can ill-afford at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

It isn’t clear how much progress Senate Democrats will make on the climate issue before a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December, where global leaders are supposed to discuss a new international treaty on climate change.

Mr. Baucus’s no vote highlighted the doubts among Democrats from states dependent on coal and manufacturing about the Boxer proposal.

The proposal approved by Environment and Public Works committee Democrats calls for a 20% cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. Lawmakers from coal-dependent states say that target will hurt their economies. When the House of Representatives cleared a companion measure earlier this year, it was able to win support for reductions of only 17% by 2020.

Lawmakers from some manufacturing states have told President Barack Obama that any climate bill should allow for tariffs on goods from countries that don’t adopt climate policies comparable to those of the U.S.

Farm interests are also flexing their muscles as negotiations continue, pushing for bigger financial rewards for activities that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

—————————————————————————————————————-

POST: Senate trio to pursue separate climate talks
Group aims for bill that could secure 60 votes

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009

Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the “Kerry-Boxer” climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday a separate track of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant.

Kerry said he, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) would work with business groups and the White House and seek a compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate.

The three said these negotiations would be separate from the work that Senate committees are doing on climate legislation — including the markup that the Environment and Public Works Committee was supposed to begin Tuesday.

Republican committee members, demanding more Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill’s impacts, are boycotting the markup, so progress has stalled. Late Wednesday, several sources said that committee Democrats were likely to sidestep the boycott on Thursday by passing the bill without amendments.

Such a move by the panel’s chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), would not require the presence of two minority members, as is traditionally required.

Kerry said his group was not circumventing the committee’s process.

“We’re going to build on it,” he said.

The idea that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) would meld various climate proposals into one was not a new one: With six committees working on related bills, Democrats had long said that somebody would have to stitch them all together.

But Kerry’s announcement was an early, and stark, signal that the committee bills would not be the only things shaping the final product.

The three senators offered few details about the elements they considered nonnegotiable: Graham said the bill should protect the climate but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on “clean coal” technology. Asked whether the group was committed to a “cap and trade” scheme, like the one used to reduce pollution in a bill passed by the House, Lieberman said yes, but noted that the scheme had “a lot of moving parts you could negotiate on.”

At Kansas Interfaith Power and Light, we often hear that when it comes to writing sermons on creation care and environmental stewardship, religious leaders just don’t know where to start.

Although the world’s major faith traditions all call us to be good stewards of creation, we often don’t hear much about climate and energy issues from the pulpit.

So, to help faith leaders connect with their congregants on these critical issues, Kansas IPL has pulled together a “Sermon Bank” - with links to sermon starters, hymns, scripture references – basically everything you need to plan a creation-honoring worship service.

Whether you’re looking for sermons sorted by topic (i.e. climate change, energy, food, transportation) or sermons sorted by denomination, you can find it through the links we’ve pulled together.

Together we can save energy, save money, and put our faith into action on climate change!  Join us!

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

An economic assessment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (Kerry-Boxer) shows that on a national level,  legislation would create up to 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income by up to $1,175 per year, and boost GDP by up to $111 billion – with all of those benefits measured relative to a scenario without such legislation.

The report also includes a state-by-state analysis and fact sheets. According to the study, Kansas stands to gain 22,000 new jobs.  Kansas report (pdf)

Key findings of the report (based on collaborate research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California) and published by E2 Environmental Entrepreneurs:

1. All 50 states can gain economically from strong federal energy and climate policy, despite the diversity of their economies and energy mixes. The states may differ on the supply side, but on the demand side they all have substantial opportunities to grow their economies by promoting energy saving and domestic renewable energy alternatives.
2. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, comprehensive national climate policy does not benefit the coasts at the expense of the heartland states. In fact, heartland states will gain more by reducing imported fossil fuel dependence because they are generally spending a higher proportion of their income on this low employment, high price risk supply chain. Demand side policies make a bigger difference for more carbon-dependent states, and carbon] reduction opportunities represent riper and lower hanging fruit.
3. The country as a whole can gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs, and household income can grow by $488 to $1,176, by 2020 under comprehensive energy and climate policy. By aggressively promoting efficiency on the demand side of energy markets, alternative fuel and renewable technology development on the supply side can be combined with carbon pollution reduction to yield economic growth and net job creation. Indeed, a central finding of this research is that the stronger the federal climate policy, the greater the economic reward.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

Yesterday, GOP lawmakers in the Environment and Public Works committee boycotted the markup of Senator Boxer’s climate legislation.

The Washington Post reported on the boycott yesterday.

Today’s Post editorial entitled “Unhelpful Atmosphere” is below:

THE SENATE Environment and Public Works Committee began its markup of a massive climate change bill on Tuesday — without its Republican members. The Republicans have some reasonable concerns about the legislation. But their boycott isn’t helpful.

By custom, such meetings don’t proceed without at least two members of the minority party present. But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the panel’s chairman, says she can continue anyway under rules that allow committee work as long as a majority of members are present.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), one of the panel’s Republicans, argues that the minority merely wants enough data to properly consider the bill. GOP members want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a series of modeling runs that would be more extensive than those it has done on similar legislation.

Ms. Boxer counters that 90 percent of the bill, known as Kerry-Boxer, is the same as the climate legislation that the House passed in June, legislation that not only the EPA but also the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration and numerous nongovernmental organizations analyzed closely. Indeed, EPA Associate Administrator David McIntosh said Tuesday that the differences wouldn’t even show up in the agency’s computer modeling, leaving little reason to conduct a completely new analysis before committee work commences. Instead, the EPA produced a “meta-analysis” accounting for what differences there are. Democrats promise that the bill that eventually reaches the floor will undergo a full EPA workup before consideration in the full Senate. That should include GOP input on the parameters of the analysis.
ad_icon

Draft texts of Kerry-Boxer have been publicly available since the end of September, and a more complete version has been out for more than a week. The GOP should be ready to offer amendments, particularly after Ms. Boxer extended the deadline for their submission to Tuesday evening. Shutting down the committee process to wait weeks for new analysis would dampen momentum before or after next month’s Copenhagen climate conference.

Besides, some Republicans have criticisms that ought to be aired. Mr. Alexander, for example, is right to wonder whether the increase in gasoline prices that the bill would spur would do much to change Americans’ consumption of crude oil. Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), who was the only Republican lawmaker to enter the hearing room Tuesday morning when he came to register GOP complaints, argues that some of the assumptions on which the EPA based its analysis of the House bill are faulty. Ms. Boxer brought Mr. McIntosh into the room Tuesday to answer just such questions. It would have been constructive if GOP committee members had been there to question him.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

Posted today on the Topeka Capital-Journal online:

GE exec to lecture on smart grid

Do you think your business could play a role in supplying the Kansas wind industry?

Then the Department of Commerce and its partners want you to visit www.kansaswindindustry.com by November 13 to fill out a survey about your company’s manufacturing capabilities. KDOC will use the results of the survey to promote the state’s resources to wind manufacturers across the country.

KDOC and its partners will also host a Wind Workshop in Wichita on Thursday, January 14th, 2010. Additional information regarding this workshop will be available on the Kansas Wind Industry website in the upcoming weeks.

Yep! The amazing Dot and Nancy team are in action once again, this time at the High Plains Transmission Summit in Lawrence, KS. Go here:

http://twitter.com/RenewKansas

The Lt. Gov. already spoke, and SPP’s Jay Caspary is speaking right now.

From the NYTimes, by Darren Samuelsohn:

Hoping to avert a partisan meltdown, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) yesterday offered an olive branch to Republicans who are planning to boycott today’s markup of a sweeping global warming bill.

Boxer still plans to begin the markup at 9 a.m. with opening statements. But she agreed to suspend the markup at 2 p.m. for an open-door meeting with U.S. EPA officials to answer committee members’ questions about the economic modeling of the legislation, she noted in a letter (pdf) late yesterday.

EPW Republicans, who ignored yesterday deadline for filing amendments, also now have until 5 p.m. today to submit any suggested changes to the bill.

“We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side, and we really hope they’ll return to the table,” Boxer told reporters. “They have every reason to do that.”

Boxer added that she still retained the right to advance the 959-page bill (pdf) without Republicans, though she would not say how long she would wait before ending the markup. “I never put a finishing date on any markup,” Boxer said. “I never have.”

She added, “I will tell you this, we’re going to be very, very patient.”

Committee Republicans huddled last night to discuss Boxer’s offer on the question-and-answer session with EPA. Matthew Dempsey, the panel’s GOP spokesman, said he expected Republicans to respond shortly before the start of today’s markup.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) first made the information request to EPA in July on the economic implications on the climate bill, placing a “hold” on Robert Perciasepe’s confirmation to be EPA deputy administrator until he got answers. Voinovich declined to say whether he would attend the question-and-answer session, which he had heard about only moments earlier when Boxer approached him on the Senate floor.

But Voinovich did say he had no plans to back down on the boycott until he gets a more complete assessment of the climate bill from EPA.

“I think we’ve made it pretty clear that we want a complete analysis of the bill,” he said. “It’s been made clear to her that’s what we want. I think it’s a sensible approach because of the fact this is probably the most important piece of legislation this committee has undertaken since the Clean Air Act itself, maybe even more important.”

Voinovich’s arguments got some significant political support yesterday when six Senate GOP committee leaders wrote Boxer a letter backing his information request. The group also said they were “deeply troubled” by Boxer’s suggestion that she could move the climate bill without trying to work with the Republicans.

Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) later said that his signature should be seen as a warning signal to Democrats should they expect to get his help in winning over other GOP moderates.

Read the rest of this entry »

The first – AgWeek looks at Sen. Stabenow’s version of a proposed offset program for carbon reductions. Notably, it puts the USDA in charge of the program, and makes EPA jointly responsible for working on rulemaking and other aspects of the program.

The Kerry-Boxer offset program had put the President in charge, with unclear delegation between USDA and EPA.

The second – from McClatchy, by Renee Schoof and David Goldstein – “Farmers fight climate bill, but warming spells trouble for them”. The report discussed below confirms the findings of the CEP study on the impacts of climate change for Kansas, and the potential problems for agriculture.

WASHINGTON — Farm state senators and others soon will get a taste of what their colleagues from Missouri already have piled high on their desks: thousands of letters from farmers urging them to vote against the climate and energy bill.

The Missouri Farm Bureau started the letter campaign early, weeks before the bill was fully written and made public. It was followed this month with a pitch from the American Farm Bureau, the nation’s largest agriculture lobby, to get farmers to take farm caps, sign their bills and send them to senators with notes that say, “Don’t cap our future.”

Agriculture is likely to have a central place in the debate on the bill later this year about the short-term costs of acting to curb climate change — and the costs of failing to address the long-term risks.

Farm lobby groups and senators who agree with them argue that imposing limits on the nation’s emissions of heat-trapping gases from coal, oil and natural gas would raise the cost of farming necessities such as fuel, electricity and natural gas-based fertilizer.

A government report, however, warns of a dire outlook for farms if rising emissions drive more rapid climate shifts in the decades ahead.

The Senate bill includes provisions that would hold down energy costs for consumers, and some senators are working to add sections that would help farmers.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in written testimony while traveling in China this week that the bill would create opportunities for farmers to sell renewable energy and to earn money by selling credits for reducing emissions. He also said the bill contained provisions that would prevent fertilizer price increases before 2025, even though fuel prices would rise.

The benefits of the bill probably will outweigh the costs in the short run, and “easily trump” increased costs in the long run, he said.

Others are worried, however.

“I can understand in the political world why they’re trying to get this under control,” said Bill Wiebold, a University of Missouri agronomist, a scientist who specializes in crop production and soil. “What are the ripple effects? That’s what farmers are concerned about. They understand that what’s being passed in Washington, D.C., could have a direct effect on their bottom line.”

Another side of the cost question, however, will be the burden on the daughters and sons who succeed today’s farmers, and the generations after them. A comprehensive review of scientific literature and government data undertaken by a team of 19 U.S. scientists at the end of the Bush administration and released in June forecast a disturbing future for American agriculture as warming accelerates in the decades ahead.

The report, “Global Change Impacts in the United States,” is the most comprehensive U.S. effort so far to move from a global view of rising temperatures due to accumulating greenhouse gases to a more regionally focused look at current and future changes.

The key messages on agriculture:

* Early on, some warming and elevated carbon-dioxide levels may be good for some crops, but higher levels of warming impair plant growth and yields. More frequent heat waves, for example, would be hard on crops such as corn and soybeans.

* Other more frequent extremes, such as heavy downpours and droughts, also would be likely to reduce crop yields.

* The quality of grazing land will decline, and heat and disease will be harder on livestock.

* Finally, warming will be good for something: pests and weeds.

“This is going to have profound effects on agriculture and forests around the world,” said William Hohenstein, the director of the Global Change Program at the Department of Agriculture.

It’s not clear how agriculture might adapt to a changing climate and at the same time improve productivity to help meet the needs of a growing population.

Read the rest of this entry »

For a copy of the actual decision, click here (warning, 58 pg. .pdf). More or less, while the KS Supreme Court found that Wabaunsee County Commissioners have the right to prohibit wind development in their county, they also suggested that the restrictions might be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. The prohibitions may constitute a takings without compensation, by not letting landowners develop their wind rights.

Additional oral arguments will be heard on January 27. (The day after the SPP Board holds a final vote on Priority Projects and the Wichita-Spearville line, incidentally.)

From the AP:

TOPEKA, Kan. — The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wabaunsee County commissioners have the right to prohibit the construction of commercial wind farms in their county.

But the court also questioned whether an ordinance banning commercial farms but allowing smaller wind generators for personal use violated some provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Commissioners adopted the ordinance in 2004.

In a unanimous decision, the court acknowledged the commission’s concerns about potential harm to the aesthetics and ecology of the Flint Hills if huge wind turbines were erected in Wabaunsee County.

The court also considered opposition from a majority of county residents who attended 54 public hearings on commercial wind farms.

“Today’s ruling on the issues is the first in Kansas and perhaps in the country where the construction of commercial wind farms as an alternative energy source is being pitted against landowners seeking undisturbed vistas of their wind-swept countryside,” Supreme Court spokesman Ron Keefover said in a news release.

The Flint Hills — site of the last remaining unplowed tallgrass prairie in the country — are considered among the best places in Kansas for wind farms because of existing power transmission lines.

They cover more than 6 million acres in eastern Kansas, stretching from the Oklahoma border to almost the Nebraska border. While the Flint Hills offer scenic and broad prairie vistas, there’s also enough steady wind in places to attract developers.

Supporters of wind energy view it as a method of generating revenue for developers and user fees for landowners. They say the Wabaunsee County ban on commercial wind farms violates their personal property rights.

But opponents fear hundreds of turbines towering 300 or more feet above the landscape will disrupt the natural beauty of the prairie, create noise pollution and hurt dwindling populations of prairie chickens, which won’t mate anywhere near large structures.

On Friday, the court agreed that the county commission’s rationale for the ban “could reasonably have been found to justify its decision: that the commercial wind farms would adversely, if not dramatically, affect the aesthetics of the county and for that reason should be prohibited.”

Still, the court was not convinced the ordinance is constitutional.

Owners of wind rights say the ordinance constitutes a “taking” of their rights without compensation. There’s also a question of whether the measure discriminates against interstate commerce, since it allows for generation of wind energy “to reduce onsite consumption of purchased utility power,” for personal use only.

Oral arguments on those issues are scheduled for late January.

J.W. Prairie Windpower, the Lawrence subsidiary of a German company that wants to develop a wind farm in Wabaunsee County, declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling because company officials haven’t had time to review it.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Last week, SPP’s Board of Directors decided to go a different route on cost allocation for building transmission, than did MISO (SPP of the upper Midwest) a bit earlier.

Granted, MISO’s decision is temporary, and granted, the SPP decision still has a lot of details to work out. But if you were a wind developer, where would you rather build?

From NAWindpower, by Mark Del Franco:

In what could dramatically alter transmission and wind energy development in the Upper Midwest, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling last week shifts virtually the entire responsibility of paying for transmission network upgrades to wind developers in the footprint of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (Midwest ISO).

The FERC ruling requires that Midwest ISO wind generators pay 90% of the cost of transmission upgrades for network upgrades for projects rated 345 kV and higher. This ruling applies to all energy generators. For projects rated lower than 345 kV, generators are required to pay the entire cost.

The ruling comes as some wind developers struggle to finance projects under the traditional 50/50 cost-allocation arrangement.

Jack Levi, president of Minneapolis-based developer National Wind, says the ruling “runs contrary to other rulings handed down by FERC in other parts of the country, such as California and the Southwest Power Pool [coverage areas],” adding that the FERC decision will add 5% to 20% to National Wind’s project costs.

The Midwest ISO says the one-year measure is designed to alleviate concerns until a permanent solution be can be worked out. According to FERC, the temporary ruling must be revisited by the Midwest ISO no later than July 2010.

“We recognize that the cost-allocation issue is one of the most difficult and contentious issues facing the Midwest ISO region at this time,” the FERC ruling states. “We find that the filing parties have proposed a reasonable interim approach to resolve the significant impacts resulting from the current cost allocation and have developed a reasonable plan to implement a longer-term solution.”

While wind energy’s tremendous potential in the Dakotas and Minnesota grabbed the headlines last year, local utilities such as Otter Tail Power and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. – fearing exposure to massive cost increases – informed the Midwest ISO of their intent to leave the operator’s territory last December.

To appease the utilities, the Midwest ISO subsequently filed a request with FERC to modify the cost-allocation methodology.

According to the FERC filing, there are 12.7 MW requesting interconnection for every 1 MW of load in the Otter Tail service area. For Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., the ratio is 4.7 MW requesting interconnection for each 1 MW of load. Both Otter Tail Power and Montana Dakota Utilities have stated that their customers would see sizable cost increases with little benefit.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Just in time for Halloween!

Check out this video coverage of the Take Charge Challenge from WDAFTV-4 News.

This week,  students in grades 4-6 at Crestview and Merriam Park elementary schools  searched their homes and their classrooms for sources of “vampire load” – the electricity consumed by appliances even when they’re turned off or in standby mode.

During the Energy Vampire Hunt, the students learned about some common Energy Vampires they use everyday – computers, ipods, cell phone chargers, electric toothbrushes, etc.

And they also learned how to slay these vampires – with powerstrips.  By keeping all appliances plugged into a power strip that can easily be turned off with the flip of one switch, Merriam students will save energy and keep Energy Vampires from draining their parents’ wallets!

The Energy Vampire Hunt was one of Merriam’s many initiatives to help them win the Take Charge Challenge, a yearlong competition between six Kansas towns.

-posted by Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

From E and E News (subs. only), by Lisa Friedman:

Military leaders from eight countries, including the United States, pressed yesterday for a global climate pact that recognizes warming temperatures as a threat to international security.

In a widely released statement, the Military Advisory Council and the Institute for Environmental Security called on governments to create an “ambitious and equitable” pact heading into U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Signed by 11 current and retired military officials, the proclamation is the first of its kind in the climate debate. Yet while it is aimed at international negotiators, leaders said the warning extends beyond the U.N. treaty.

“Climate change is a national security issue, and eventually it will become a global security issue,” said retired Indian Air Marshal A.K. Singh, who serves as chairman of the newly formed council.

He and others questioned whether governments are prepared to address the humanitarian disasters — some likely to be long-term and others abrupt — brought about by droughts and storms. From conflicts between India and Pakistan over shriveling water resources to an almost complete inability to protect Afghanistan from drought and disease, experts said they believe the world has yet to understand how threatening climate change can really be.

“This is a war we need to win,” said Stephen Anderson, co-chairman of the Montreal Protocol’s Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. “We don’t look at cost as the primary driver when security is at risk, and we have to start thinking of climate that way, as well.”

Other diplomatic pressures

The call from military leaders comes as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrapped up a week of hearings on climate legislation that would slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels in the coming decade. EPW Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is aiming for a Tuesday panel vote on the bill, though Republicans have threatened to block a vote until the U.S. EPA makes more analysis available.

A delegation of European members of parliament also gathered in Washington yesterday to press the United States on its domestic legislation. Environment Committee Chairman Jo Leinen in a statement pressed the United States to develop more ambitious emission reduction targets. Leinen also held out the hope that a U.S. cap-and-trade system could be linked to the European trading system, paving the way for a trans-Atlantic — and someday a global — carbon market.

International climate policy experts, meanwhile, testified to Congress and appeared bent on assuring lawmakers that fast-emerging countries like China and India are doing their part to address rising emissions.

“China,in particular, is doing more than many believe to reduce the tremendous growth in their emissions and invest in the clean-energy technologies of the future,” Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, testified before the EPW panel.

Mexico, meanwhile, has undertaken unilateral plans to cut emissions from 2000 levels in half by 2050 and develop a cap-and-trade system between the oil and electricity sectors by 2011. Brazil’s climate plan, which focuses on avoiding deforestation, could lower emissions by about 413 million metric tons of CO2 by next year alone.

“Those who have worried that the United States might act alone need worry no more. The worry should be that without us, the rising global effort will falter,” added Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute think tank.

Read the rest of this entry »