Climate and energy

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.

Climate change: Con: If there is climate change going on, and if it is somehow related to human activity, then what does it cost to deal with it? Are the costs too high? Are we already spending too much on other things like gas for our cars already and we can’t afford to deal with carbon dioxide? Pro: What does it cost NOT to deal with climate change? How can we afford not to?

Science: Con: We need good science to make good policy and this global warming science is uncertain so this is bad policy and we could REALLY mess up Mother Nature that way. Pro: The IPCC has spoken end of story.

Human health/ Environmental damage: Pro: Climate change will lead to problems of health, hunger, disease, water shortages, and in the long-term those costs will dwarf any temporary short-term dislocation from transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Con: You don’t KNOW that.

Consumers: Con: Consumers only care about what this bill will cost them. Pro: Consumers are also human beings who care about clean air and water and the environment. Con: Doesn’t mean they don’t care what it costs, especially at the pump.

Economics: Pro: There is a lot of economic opportunity in moving toward renewables and energy efficiency. Con: There is a lot of economic risk in moving away from fossil fuels.

NEWS ALERT (for Kansans): Sam Brownback is talking about the End of Environmentalism!!!!!!! Very interesting that he should have read that book.

The book talks about the different historical stages of environmentalism – first came the conservation wave, second wave is the regulatory wave, now we’re in the investment wave. He says the way to invest is to balance the three E’s of energy, economy, and environment. And he says cap and trade is not how to do this – too big a burden, for too few carbon dioxide reductions and much too high an economic cost. Western Resources – at $20 ton CO2 it would double their fuel costs. Dramatic increase in price of electricity for people in Topeka KS, because they depend on coal from Powder River basin. His theory: It’s how you use electricity, not how you generate it that matters. He touts the Sunflower Electric coal plants and their algae reactor experiment (which wasn’t actually written into any of the bills if I recall) We can’t change how we emit CO2 too fast because prices will be too high for consumers.

Innovation technology investment is the way to go. This other stuff won’t have enough impact and will drive business overseas. There are too many unpredictable results from this bill, except that we know prices will increase. He plans amendments to help ag with carbon sequestration, algae, biofuels, but no hard cap and trade that just adds costs.

MH – okay, that’s energy and economy, but where’s the environment?

Certainty/ Uncertainty: Con: The positive environmental effects of this bill are uncertain but the bad economic effects are very certain so we shouldn’t pass it. Pro: The negative environmental impacts of climate change are very certain and there are safeguards to keep the economic effects of the legislation in check.

Gas prices: Pro: We can deal with climate change and high fuel prices separately. They have different causes, and big oil causes high gas prices so let’s go after them separately. Con: Dealing with climate change will indeed cause gas prices to rise so let’s keep those issues linked and defeat the climate change legislation but … the oil companies and the Wall St speculators… hmm. All: Man this gets complicated.

International scene: Con: Carbon dioxide emissions are an international problem that can’t be solved with a national solution, look at India’s. Pro: The Bush administration is currently negotiating an international treaty on emissions reductions.

Water: Pro: The arid West doesn’t have enough water to risk more drought. We can’t risk climate change.

Carbon regulation: Con: Cap and trade is big government telling you what to do and how to spend your money and it’s trying to control how you use energy. It’s against private property rights.

Environmentalists: Con: They’re just trying to scare you.

Favorite misquote: “America cannot take a backside – excuse me, a backseat – and sit on the sidelines.”

Good quotes: “The higher our ecological debt goes, the more trouble we will be in later.” Jack Reed

“While the Senate – fiddles – the globe warms… Do you want to fiddle while the globe burns?” Joseph Lieberman

(about methane emissions) “Given the natural condition of cattle, how are you going to eliminate – flatulence? Are you actually going to study that?” Tom Coburn

BUZZWORDS: establish a level playing field, lead the way, the next generation (of biofuels, of technology, of Americans, etc.), reliance on foreign oil, rogue foreign governments, carbon footprint, environment (as in, I really do care about the environment but let’s talk about energy prices), China and India China and India China and India, historical debate, the American people deserve

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org