Back again! Lieberman-Warner, the Climate Security Act, . (You can find the text of the bill here, and listen in live here.) CEP took notes on the debate on Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3, and here’s some of the recent media coverage.
Also, Pew Climate has a site that analyzes the bill.
A great deal of the climate and energy debate in the states (such as in Kansas) revolves around the fact that Congress is expected to soon implement carbon regulation. The Warner-Lieberman bill, regardless of whether it is passed, will set the foundation for this regulation.
The debate will go on all day. We won’t listen all day. Plus which, we are mainly just taking notes on the arguments, not live blogging per se. However, feel free to check for updates to this entry as we roughly follow along.
A tension I have noted in the debate so far: Conservative senators from Midwestern states are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place – between agriculture (which is highly climate-sensitive), and energy.
How does this work? As a region, recall that the Midwest gets around 75% of its energy from coal power. Eek. That’s a very high proportion. Of course, coal is a very high-carbon fuel, carbon sequestration technology that can control the emissions at the point of combustion does not yet exist, and so carbon regulation will make the price of coal-fired electricity go up.
That’s the energy side. These congressfolk are worried that carbon regulation could create higher energy prices in the Midwest compared to the rest of the country. Understandable.
However, on the climate side, the Midwestern agricultural economy is already facing very high risks from climate change. As a major USDA study just announced, weeds are growing faster, insect populations are increasing, yields are decreasing, and precipitation and drought cycles are intensifying and becoming more extreme.
That’s not good.
Have any of these senators from these states mentioned this study at all, though? Not that I have heard. They are talking a lot about energy prices, not so much about ag. (Ag lobbyists – where are you? More importantly, farmers, where are you? You can contact your senator through www.congress.org.)
The Midwest has huge incentive to fight climate change, lower carbon dioxide emissions, and thus protect its agricultural base. If we continue to burn coal without carbon dioxide controls, then we continue to change the climate, which will then continue to hurt agriculture.
Whatever hurts agriculture hurts us. What good will it do the region to have cheap electricity if there’s not many people left living here to use it?
Overall, the major argument that opposition to the bill is making – the legislation’s economic impact is not worth the environmental benefits because the carbon dioxide reduction targets are set too low.
While I don’t know this, of course, I can indeed see Warner and Lieberman and Boxer silently screaming in their heads – “But we had to set them low or otherwise you all wouldn’t pass them!”
Well, there can always be a new amendment to raise the targets. And then it would be interesting to see who voted for or against them.
On the ongoing procedural amendment drama, re the amendments: Opposition to the bill is pretty cranky because they want more amendments, but “the amendment tree is filled” by the Democratic Majority Leader and they can’t.
****************************
As noted on other days, I will just offer versions of arguments that we haven’t seen before – or arguments that are getting refined/ tweaked in interesting ways. And if there is a “pro” or “con” missing below then that is probably just because I walked away from my desk and didn’t hear it.
“Can’t we all just get along?”: Pro: We might not all agree about global warming… but surely we can all agree about the need for energy independence. Con: OK, then let’s talk about those amendments and especially the ones on nuclear power.
Renewable energy: Pro: It will create a new economic sector and inspire domestic manufacturing and create new jobs. Con: Yes of course we need more renewables and to give lots and lots and lots of money to research and development. But there is a better way than this legislation.
CEP facing technical challenges today
June 5, 2008
I can think of at least a few readers who will read the following and scream – HA! but I must be truthful… CEP is not at the office today because there is an electrical outage in downtown Lawrence. Some big breaker that is connected to a major underground line.
So CEP is thus back at home in the boondocks, where high-speed cable lines doth not go. (And where electricity supply is frankly always just a little dicey.) Today we are going via dish.
The last set of storms knocked our dish at home and just got fixed yesterday but a new set of storms is poised to tear through central and NE KS today so – we’ll see.
Tornados, hail, the whole bit. If you’re from around here, keep your head down. According to the WIBW meteorologist on speaking on Country Legends 106.9 FM this morning, the atmosphere is super-charged with so much energy and moisture that the storms could rival the ones of 1974 when the really, really big tornados tore through this section of the state.
Still possible to listen in to Lieberman-Warner being debated in the Senate (but not watch). Although that appears to be being held hostage at the moment. Opposition of the bill wants to have lots of amendments plus some judicial nominations confirmed; support is responding by saying lots, lots, lots about the war in Iraq. (It sounds a little like a really unhappy marriage, doesn’t it? “You did x!” “Because you did y!” Maybe Congress should go to counseling.)
However, the blog could move like molasses today. And/or stop entirely. And I might not be able to answer questions as quickly as I would like.
Thank you for your patience!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Update: Media coverage of Senate debate on Climate Security Act (Warner-Lieberman)
June 5, 2008
The Senate is currently debating the Climate Security Act, a major piece of cap and trade carbon regulation also known as Warner-Lieberman (and vice versa).
CEP has been checking in and taking very basic notes on the rhetoric of the arguments (see Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 so far. Who knows how long the debate will go). As you can tell, the discussion is fairly polarized in many respects, with an interesting potential crossover point regarding nuclear power.
Following are some nice analyses of what exactly is going on in the bill, some of them from CEP’s favorite climate and energy blogs.
The Christian Science Monitor has broken down the major conflicts over the bill so far. Above all, how much will carbon regulation cost?
Opponents say the economic burdens outweigh the environmental (and economic) benefits. Supporters say that is because opponents haven’t done the math, and are not including the economic costs of climate change or the economic development of renewable and low-carbon energy and green jobs.
The WSJ Environmental Capital blog wades right in to analyzing the “slugfest.” From what I can tell so far, that’s a very accurate descriptor. I especially liked their point that this is not about red v. blue, it’s about brown v. green. Jeff Ball was also interviewed about the bill on NPR. Climateer also gives the interview some kudos.
I am also very much enjoying Joe Romm’s comments over at Climate Progress. He also notes that EnergyEnvironmentTV is posting segments from the debate on YouTube.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Farmers, energy, and irrigation… which way to turn? Farmers need an energy source to run their irrigation pumps (to grow the crops that feed hungry people).
Especially in arid sections of Oklahoma and Kansas, where agriculture depends on irrigating crops with water drawn from the Ogallala Aquifer, many farmers have been using diesel made from fossil fuels to fuel those pumps. However, recently the price of diesel has more than tripled (Reuters).
This increases farmers’ bottom line. Many are converting their pumps to run on electricity – and as we know in Kansas, there’s a long line of farmers waiting impatiently to do this. However, as this Texas farmer points out:
Steve Yoder, a farmer in Dalhart, Texas who runs 20 percent of his irrigation pumps on electricity, and the rest on natural gas and diesel, said he wishes he did not have to use any diesel. But he is still reluctant to switch too much of his irrigation pumps to electricity.
“They could hike electricity to where it’s more expensive,” said Yoder. “We just don’t know from one year to the next.”
Research on carbon sequestration not going well. When burned, coal produces carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant that helps lead to climate change, we all know the drill… thus it would be really cool if we could find some sort of carbon sequestration technology that could capture the carbon.
Certain forms of farming do already sequester carbon in the soil. However, owners of power plants would REALLY like to find some direct sequestration techniques they can use for their facilities. This is geological sequestration. If developed (and if affordable), this technology would literally change the world.
But it doesn’t look like that is very close to happening (NYTimes). Quotable:
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant…
… But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
