Gristmill

Clear and present endangerment

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:44:44 PDT

By Kate Sheppard

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has been foiled in her attempt to obtain and make public a U.S. EPA document on the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases, thanks to Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee that she chairs.

The document in question is an endangerment finding that the White House refused to accept when the EPA emailed it to the Office of Management and Budget in December 2007. EPA staffers have said that their findings -- that global warming poses significant threats to human health and welfare, and that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act -- were rejected by the OMB, which declined to even open the email containing the document.

Earlier this week, former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason Burnett testified to Boxer's EPW committee that the White House feared the agency's conclusions would force the administration to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions -- not a legacy it wants to leave behind. The White House has been blocking public release of the document.

Boxer convened her committee this morning to vote on whether to issue a subpoena for the document, but Republicans on the committee boycotted, depriving Boxer of the two GOP votes she would have needed to push the subpoena through.

EPW committee members and their staffs were allowed to view a copy of the document last night and take notes. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, had also been permitted to view a copy a few weeks ago. According to reports from those who saw it, the document showed that the EPA's experts and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson came to the conclusion that climate change is a major threat and thus the federal government should regulate greenhouse gases. That's a far cry from what the Bush administration has said publicly. Rather than finalize regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions, Johnson announced on July 11 that the administration was seeking additional months of public comment on its rule-making notice, effectively running out the clock on Bush's presidency.

"The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concludes in this document that there is an endangerment to the American people based on the strongest possible evidence," said Boxer, according her prepared remarks for this morning's meeting. "It is clear. It is chilling. It is detailed. In this document, in EPA's own words, we see that the law is clear, that the scientific evidence is sufficient, and that we must act."

Boxer released several excerpts of the document that her staff recorded last night , highlighting the conclusions reached by Johnson:

• "The Administrator believes that there is compelling and robust evidence that observed climate change can be attributed to the heating effect caused by global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

• "Based on the evidence before him, the Administrator believes it is reasonable to conclude current and future emissions of greenhouse gases will contribute to future climate change."

• "The Administrator is aware that the range of potential impacts that can result from climate change spans many elements of the global environment, and that all regions of the U.S. will be affected in some way."

• "The U.S. has a long and populous coastline. Sea level rise will continue, and exacerbate storm surge flooding and shoreline erosion."

• "In areas where heat waves already occur, they are expected to be more intense, more frequent, and longer- lasting."

• "Wildfires and the wildfire season are already increasing and climate change is expected to continue to worsen the conditions that facilitate wildfires."

• "Where water resources are already scarce and over allocated in the Western U.S., climate change is expected to put additional strain on these water management issues for municipal, agricultural, energy and industrial uses."

• "Climate change also introduces additional stress on ecosystems which are already affected by development, habitat fragmentation, and broken ecological dynamics."

• "In sum, the Administrator is proposing to find that elevated levels of GHG concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare."

Boxer also announced today that she and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had called Johnson to testify before Leahy's committee at a July 30 hearing entitled "Is the White House Interfering with EPA and Impeding Congressional Oversight?" According to Boxer's office, Johnson turned down that invitation.

Retire your carbon, offset your guilt

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:53:56 PDT

By Joseph Romm

Carbon Retirement -- you read it here first (or maybe second).

I don't normally endorse individual companies. But I have long thought European allowances were the best alternative to offsets and am delighted someone has made a business out of it.

The business opportunity is clear -- offsets suck. At a policy level, they can destroy the environmental value of climate legislation.

At a personal level, lots of vendors are selling very dubious offsets, including CCX. I can't imagine why you would waste your money on the most popular offsets, trees (certainly not a Northern forest -- heck, even offset seller Terrapass disses trees). And don't get us started on the other popular offset, RECs.

But I know some of you out there really want to be carbon neutral, and while you have bought 100 percent renewable power for your superefficient home that uses a geothermal heating and cooling system to replace natural gas, and you bought a Prius for the family car and you telecommute, you just haven't figured out how to avoid some driving and flying.

What to do? Buy real emissions credits from the European market and retire them permanently! Now that is the best idea since solar baseload.

Here is an article on Carbon Retirement, which launched on July 15. Now obviously European allowances are much more expensive than offsets -- but that is the whole point. Offsets are like junk bonds or perhaps more appropriately subprime loans. European allowances are the real deal.

Yes, I know you are concerned that Phase 1 of the European emissions trading scheme didn't go well. But in fact, it really didn't go that badly. But in any case, Phase 1 was pre-2008 and thus was a trading scheme without a hard emissions cap, which is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the bread -- a mess.

As Carbon Retirement explains:

The price of Phase 1 EUAs dropped when analysts realised in spring 2006 that European governments had allocated so many allowances that the regulated industries did not have to make reductions. This was because the allocation plans were based on estimates of emissions, rather than audited measurements.

The allocation plans behind Phase 2 are based on extensive and credible measurement of the industries' emissions, and the industries within the scheme will have to make emission reductions. This is why the price of Phase 2 credits remained strong when the Phase 1 credits collapsed. Independent analysts have recently assessed the allocation for Phase 2 and forecast that credits will be scarce.

Actually, their entire website is incredibly informative and explains why buying and retiring European allowances is infinitely superior to ~~wasting your money on~~ buying offsets.

Kudos to Dan Lewer, who founded this company at the age of 25.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Slippery troupe

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:05:31 PDT

By Kate Sheppard

The McCain campaign held a press call this morning with senior policy advisers Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Nancy Pfotenhauer on the candidate's energy plan. The subjects of yesterday's tanker spill near New Orleans and McCain's canceled trip to an offshore rig because of Hurricane Dolly came up during discussion of McCain's call for more drilling.

"This [offshore drilling] is the right thing for the economy, it is the right thing for national security. And, as [McCain] is always committed to pursuing these endeavors in an environmentally friendly way, it's the right thing for the environment in the long run as well," said Holtz-Eakin.

"It is a reality if you talk to any kind of environmental community, everything has to be on the table. You have to have coal, you have to have natural gas, you have to have oil, you have to have nuclear power, you have to have every power source as part of the portfolio if the United States is going to achieve its environmental goals and achieve its national security goals," Holtz-Eakin continued. "John McCain has laid out a common-sense course and allowed himself to solve the problems as opposed to being trapped by ideology."

The idea that offshore drilling is "the right thing for the environment" will be a tough point for the McCain campaign to prove. McCain has also maintained that offshore drilling is "safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston." But according to government figures, the storms in 2005 caused 146 small spills in federal waters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita completely destroyed 113 oil rigs and damaged 457 pipelines, and Katrina alone spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Mississippi River.

Pfotenhauer argued that yesterday's spill wasn't at all related to drilling -- even though one would assume the 420,000 gallons of fuel oil that were dumped into the river had to come out of the ground somehow.

"I believe it was a traffic jam, or a water-traffic accident, and didn't have anything to do with drilling. It had to do with transportation. And oil is transported on barges, and so you have the potential for those accidents regardless. No matter where it was drilled, you have the potential for those accidents in transportation," said Pfotenhauer. "Obviously everybody takes every step they can to try to minimize those. And the record for offshore drilling has been remarkably safe over time."

Holtz-Eakin followed by arguing that the real threat to the environment isn't the potential for oil spills, but terrorism. "I just want to point out that, with regard to spillage and other environmental threats that come from energy sources, let's remember that our reliance on imported oil makes the whole supply chain a target for terrorists. And in addition to that being a national security issue, it's a big environmental threat to have terrorists looking for an opportunity to damage the supply chain for oil into the United States, and weaning ourselves of that dependence would be a great thing.

Holtz-Eakin was also asked about where the candidate stands on oil-shale development, the energy topic of the week:

The senator believes that we should take advantage of the most opportune ways to meet our oil needs in the near-term. Obviously the OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] is the most promising, readily developable oil available. Past that, he believes that the other efforts he will undertake will make it unnecessary to use large amounts of different kinds of sources. We're not going to use them now, but if we need to use those, we're going to use the same formula we're going to apply to the OCS. Let's have the local stakeholders have their say, let's make sure we do this in an environmentally friendly way, and let's make sure that the leases and royalties are shared in a way that's appropriate."

The biggest low-carbon resource, by far

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:25:08 PDT

By Joseph Romm

Energy efficiency is the most important climate solution for several reasons:

It is by far the biggest resource.
It is by far the cheapest, far cheaper than the current cost of unsustainable energy, so cheap that it helps pay for the other solutions.
It is by far the fastest to deploy.
It is "renewable" -- the efficiency potential never runs out.

This post focuses on number one -- the tremendous size of the resource.

Of the 14 or so wedges we need to deploy globally by 2050, I have argued that about two are electricity efficiency, one is recycled energy (cogeneration), and one is vehicle fuel efficiency (cars globally averaging 60 mpg). The International Energy Agency also thinks about four wedges are efficiency. And so does Price Waterhouse Coopers.

(I would also add that since plug-in hybrids are another core solution -- and since the electric motor is inherently more efficient than the gasoline engine -- you could also consider part of the plug-in wedge to be an efficiency gain.)

I have already written about recycled energy and high-efficiency plug-in hybrids, so what I will focus on over the next several days is end-use electricity efficiency.

How big is the efficiency potential in this country? The global consulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that nearly 40 percent of the U.S. emissions reduction potential by 2030 is from energy efficiency.

In the past three decades, electricity per capita has stayed flat in Californian while it has risen 60 percent in the rest of the country. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. And if all of America adopted the same energy efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another power plant.

Energy efficiency is the core climate solution.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

You got to know when to hold 'em

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:35:28 PDT

By David Roberts

Republicans have mastered a political technique that seems to work on Democrats every time: the projection of strength. No matter the issue, when it comes up for dispute Republicans claim that Americans support their position; they claim that Democrats are out of touch with ordinary folk; they claim that Democrats are on defensive; they put forward bill after bill, press release after press release, stunt after stunt, trumpeting their alleged advantage.

Faced with this predictable and oft-repeated tactic, Dems cave again and again. Told they're on the defensive, they go on the defensive. They start trying to split the difference with the Republican position and shift the focus to other issues. And the public notices. Faced with a choice between bold wrongness and mealy-mouthed hedging, they'll go with the wrongness.

It's a weird form of hypnotism, and it's playing out before our eyes in the energy debate. Republicans are widely loathed, they're getting creamed on the economy, and with Obama's overseas trip, creamed on national security, they know their presidential candidate is a dud, they've got no new answers on the energy crisis they helped create ... yet they've got the entire D.C. establishment convinced that their drill-and-burn message is a winner.

And Democrats are buying it; now they're out emphasizing that they love drilling too! (Except here but not there, this lease but not that lease, this pace not that pace.) The entire Democratic Party has gone in to a defensive crouch, trying to match Republicans oil gimmick for oil gimmick -- speculator-bashing, windfall profit taxes, use-it-or-lose-it legislation, etc. etc. They are showing the American public yet again that they are the choice for people who like less-Republican Republicans.

But it's all based on a bluff. It's BS. Dems are getting duped. It's true that the public is concerned about gas prices, and it's true they will support virtually anything that looks like bold action, but it's simply not true that they are attached to drilling specifically. If they are polled in a way that sets drilling against other alternatives, other alternatives win. They want something done, but there's no need to accept the Republican framing that something has to mean getting more oil in the market.

WCI's new proposal

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:09:58 PDT

By Eric de Place

Draft is here [PDF].

Just the major points. First off, the proposal is basically pretty good. We should keep in mind that what WCI is doing represents a big -- gigantic -- step in the right direction for the climate. So I'll raise a glass to everyone who's worked so hard on the WCI proposal so far.

But there's room for improvement. Below, I highlight the core areas of the proposal. These are bedrock issues that make me concerned.

Transportation is in. Sort of.
It appears that transportation fuels -- the region's largest source of carbon pollution -- will be delayed until 2015, the second "compliance period." The document is not crystal clear, but in Section 6, "Setting the Regional Cap," it says that the regional cap will be adjusted in 2015 to add both transportation and the natural gas that is used in homes and businesses. (See 6.3). It's critical that we included transportation fuels ASAP.

Auctioning is in limbo.
WCI appears to be punting on this hugely important question. In past communications they've said that states and provinces will be required to auction a minimum percentage of between 25 and 75 percent of their allowances. In today's draft (see 8.7) they say this:

The issue of establishing a minimum percentage of allowances subject to auction by each Partner is still under discussion by the Partners. The Partners expect to make a recommendation on this issue by Fall, 2008.

That's not wildly helpful. But in defense of WCI, they do include quite a bit of language about how the value of allowances are to be used (Sections 8.2 and 8.3) most of which are clearly good public interest goals.

Offsets are on the table.
WCI is apparently considering allowing offsets in the amount of 10 percent of any regulated firm's allowances. They say, "not greater than 10 percent of an individual entity's or facility's compliance obligation" (section 9.2). (A firm's compliance obligation is its total amount of carbon emissions.) Since WCI is shooting for a 20 percent reduction, allowing a firm to submit offsets to cover 10 percent of its total emissions is tantamount to allowing offsets to cover half of all the WCI reductions. In my judgment, 10 percent is probably much too high a figure. We shouldn't have so much confidence in offsets. (For more on the trouble with offsets, see this excellent 2-page summary [PDF] from economist Chris Busch with the Union of Concerned Scientists. It's California-centric, but completely relevant to WCI.)

A strange loophole, maybe.
Finally, there's some odd language sprinkled throughout the document that appears to nudge open the door for some states or provinces to avoid capping transportation fuels. In Section 1.4, for example, the document says:

WCI Partners acknowledge that individual jurisdictions may instead utilize comparable fiscal measures, such as British Columbia's carbon tax, to address transportation fuels and fuel use by residential and commercial sources.

That would be a mistake. Consistency and comprehensiveness are key to the program's success. To use this particular example, B.C.'s carbon tax can easily integrate with a cap-and-trade program (the taxes would basically become a "reserve price" in the auction system). But a legal cap on carbon is important because it makes certain we meet our climate targets.

Like Cocoon, only in real life

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:08:05 PDT

By JMG

Caring for the world is good for geezers -- and the world too!

(I can use "geezer" because ... hey, you kids, get off my lawn!)

Starfruit punch

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:29:12 PDT

By Tom Philpott

If you love starfruit, you may want to consider giving your habit a rest for a while.

A friend emailed me this bit from [PDF] from Wednesday's Federal Register. Declaring an "emergency," the EPA has established a "time-limited tolerance" for residues of fludioxonil, a pesticide, on starfruit. According to the EPA, Florida starfruit is being scourged by a fungus that evidently can only be repelled by fludioxonil.

I'm in the process of figuring out exactly how toxic fludioxonil is. In the meantime, I find this interesting:

Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment.

Given the clear and truly egregious way the EPA has been acting in service of industry interests rather than public ones, this news can bring little comfort to the folks who eat starfish or tend them in Florida's farm fields.

Major League

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:51:26 PDT

By Kate Sheppard

The League of Conservation Voters announced its endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, touting his energy and environment plans as the "most comprehensive" ever from a presidential nominee.

While LCV President Gene Karpinski credits John McCain -- whom LCV endorsed in his 2004 Senate race -- for taking the challenge of global warming seriously, Karpinski says that the "solutions that he suggests aren't nearly good enough."

Grist caught up with Karpinski this week to talk about the endorsement, differences Obama has had with green groups in the past, and the role energy and environmental issues will play in this election.

Grist: So what made LCV decide to endorse Barack Obama?

Karpinski: Our top priorities are the related issues of global warming and a new energy future, and Obama has put forward the most comprehensive, most aggressive, most ambitious plan of any nominee in history. No. 2, you compare [Obama's and McCain's] lifetime scores. LCV's report card is one of the most important barometers of how good somebody is on the environment. McCain's lifetime score, going back to 1983 with nearly 300 votes that the League has deemed important, is an embarrassing 24 percent. Sen. Obama, in his three years in the Senate, scored 86 percent. So Sen. Obama is much better on meeting the challenges of global warming and a new energy future.

Gene Karpinski.

Photo: Chris Kleponis

And then when you look at the specific policies, Sen. Obama supports a much more aggressive increase in fuel-economy standards, a mandatory renewable-electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025, cutting global-warming pollution by 80 percent, and making polluters pay for permits. And on each of those issues, Sen. McCain is in a different place. He's opposed mandatory fuel-economy standards, opposed a renewable-electricity standard, and his global-warming plan falls far short of what the science says we need to do.

Grist: LCV endorsed McCain in his Senate race in 2004.

Karpinski: Clearly John McCain is better than President Bush, but that's an extremely low bar and not the way you measure someone. When we endorsed him in 2004, it was related to the field, and at the time he had a leading plan to address global warming. But when you compare him to Sen. Obama, there's no comparison that makes sense. Sen. Obama is head and shoulders above in terms of his plan, in terms of his lifetime score, in terms of his specific policies.

Grist: Doesn't this seem like a slap in the face for McCain, who has stuck his neck out on an issue that isn't particularly popular with many in his party?

Karpinski: We recognize that he's acknowledged that global warming is serious and he's put forward a plan for it. That's to his credit. But that alone is not enough. This is the most important challenge we face. It's a critical moment in our history. We need the president who's going to be the most aggressive, the most ambitious, the most comprehensive, and the best leader to get the job done. And clearly that's Sen. Obama.

Grist: Are there any things you would like to see strengthened in Obama's plan?

Karpinski: I think the biggest challenge for Sen. Obama is two-fold. First, that's to keep making it a priority during his campaign, which he has done, and we applaud him for that. Secondly, it's to make sure that when he gets into office, which we want to make sure he does, he exercises the leadership to pull this together.

I think the new president has to do three key things. One is to work with Congress to put a comprehensive plan on the table within the first 100 days. Secondly, it's to immediately upon taking office use his existing authority to move the levers of government -- the EPA, get the Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase CAFE, to green the government itself. So use the executive authorities he has. Third, he needs to engage the international community. We need to be able to go into Copenhagen [where the next big U.N. climate conference will be held in Dec. 2009] and say we're leaders, and that's what we want from the rest of the world.

Grist: In the past, green groups in general, including LCV, have been critical of Obama's record and rhetoric on coal. On the coal-to-liquids issue, when environmental groups criticized him for it, he was pretty defensive about it.

Karpinski: I think his position has now evolved to the point where he has said we shouldn't have any other fuel unless it reduces CO2 emissions. And from what we currently know about liquid coal, liquid coal doesn't meet that standard. So by saying any new standard has to reduce CO2 emissions, that's the most important thing he's done.

Grist: Do you have concerns about his overall policies on coal? He's from a coal state, and he's shown sympathies for the industry over the years.

Karpinski: When you look at how his position has evolved on the issue of liquid coal, he's moved in the right direction. And if you look at his position on requiring utilities to move to 25 percent renewables by 2025, that's the correct, appropriate policy. Coal's going to be with us for a while. The question is how do you push the alternatives as quickly as possible.

Grist: What does the endorsement from green groups mean this year? It seems like Obama has been actively courting groups like the labor community and women voters. It doesn't seem like he's been as aggressive in going after green groups. Is it going to be important for Obama to have this kind of endorsement?

Karpinski: Oh, I think it's critically important. We met with him, and he answered our questionnaire over a year ago. We've had conversations with his staff on a regular basis.

It's particularly important because this issue is front and center in the debate. Just this week both candidates were doing ads on these issues. Sen. McCain likes to say he's an environmentalist. We'll, he likes to say that, but the facts suggest that he's not nearly good enough. There's no comparison between the two when you look at their records. So it's an important part of the conversation in that regard.

Independent voters, like they were in 2006, will be a key part of this election cycle. And this issue of a new energy future was the top voting issue for them in 2006 and we certainly expect it to be a top issue this year. Therefore, our work as third-party evaluators in making it clear that Sen. Obama is far superior to Sen. McCain on these issues is a critical message that needs to be heard.

Grist: How about Obama's advisers on energy and environment? Are these the people you think represent your issues well?

Karpinski: He's had a whole host of people, volunteers, outside advisers. I was just with one last night -- people like Mark Van Putten, Jason Grumet, Howard Learner, who have been in the environmental field for many years. That's a good sign right there. The woman who's taking over I believe this week in terms of the actual campaign staff is Heather Zichal, who's done this work for Sen. [John] Kerry for many years. So you look at the people who are working with him both as volunteers and on staff, and they've been leaders on these issues for many years, so that's a positive sign as well.

Grist: Are people going to vote the environment this year?

Karpinski: Absolutely. When you ask people what issues concern them, the issue of a new energy future is top of their mind, every day. People are upset about gas prices, they're concerned about our security, they're concerned about global warming. A whole host of issues all revolve around the solutions to our energy problem. That's what makes this election so exciting. It's a time when these issues frame not just as an environmental issue, but frame more broadly as the challenge of the energy problem we face. It will be front and center for voters, and the candidates talk about it every day. The key, therefore, is to understand the differences between the candidates and make sure voters understand and know why Sen. Obama's plans and his vision and his leadership is far superior. His plan, if done the right way, will be not just an environmental solution, but it will create new jobs, it will be good for the economy, good for our security, and it will protect the planet from global-warming pollution.

Grist: Both McCain and Republicans in Congress have been pushing for drilling as the solution to energy problems. It seems like rising gas prices will be a big issue in the campaign. Does that make it more challenging to put forward more environmentally sound alternatives?

Karpinski: Clearly the public is upset about gas prices, but leaders have to lead in terms of the right solutions. We can't go back to the failed solutions of the past brought to us by Big Oil and George Bush and say that's the way to solve this problem. That's the kind of approach that got us into the problems we're in today. We need new vision, new leadership, and new ways of doing things that push toward new alternatives and a new energy future, that's good for jobs, good for the economy, good for security, and good for the environment. Not the ways of the past, but the ways of the future. Efficiencies and renewables are the way to solve this problem, not the Big Oil solutions of the past.

Grist: Do you think this is a first-100-days issue for both Barack Obama and John McCain? They both talk about it as such, but do you think it would be?

Karpinski: I know for Sen. Obama, when asked how would he measure his first years, he's talked about three issues. One is the national security issue, the second is health care, and third is the related issues of solving the energy and global warming problems. So it's absolutely one of his top three issues. That's why absolutely as the new president we need him to put forth a new legislative issue in the first 100 days, use his executive authority, and exert the kind of international leadership to have the United States finally be a leader again in the solutions, and not just the leader in terms of the problem.

Grist: How about McCain. Do you think it would be a first-100-days issue for him?

Karpinski: It's hard to say. He certainly talks about it a lot. We'll see. I think he takes it seriously, there's no doubt about it. Compared to other issues, I think it's probably on the shortlist as well. The problem, though, is his solutions that he suggests aren't nearly good enough. They don't do what the science says we need to do. And in some ways they're relying on the failed policies of the past. Do we want to go drill off our coasts in the first 100 days? That's crazy. That's the old solutions. We need a new energy future, and that's where Sen. Obama wants to take us.

A renewable win

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:15:39 PDT

By Jason D Scorse

Putting aside the causes of the oil-price rise and what the future holds, I am concerned that progressives are losing the public debate about what to do about it. Like David, I was extremely disappointed with Gore's interview on Meet the Press this past week, both with respect to the ridiculous questions from Brokaw and Gore's complete inability to get the right message across.

And now we have an editorial from The Wall Street Journal (as well as John McCain himself) making the absurd claim that Bush's lifting of the offshore oil drilling ban is responsible for the recent drop in oil prices. Since I am assume both McCain and the op-ed writer are smart enough to know that this is false, one can only assume they are willing to lie because they think that this presents an opening for the rightwing in a season when they look doomed.

Unfortunately, data exists to back up this belief, as the public's support for offshore oil drilling is rising. The simple fact is that when costs of energy go up, most people are willing to put aside environmental concerns, including global warming.

This is why it is crucial that progressives, and especially the Obama campaign (who brilliantly won the gas tax holiday debate during the primaries), need to adopt an aggressive strategy for winning over the public on energy issues.

Here's what I think should be the central message:

There are no quick fixes like the Republicans want you to believe, but if we do this right, energy will not only be cleaner and from domestic sources in the future, but it will be cheaper too. If we can get a national energy plan for electric plug-ins we'll be able to drive 150 miles for the cost of one gallon of gas. But it's going to take some time to get there, and we need a steady commitment. Drilling helps the Chinese more than us and it's a backwards strategy that threatens our coastal waters and national heritage, and hands the oil companies another gift.
In the meantime, since we're going to have to suffer through higher energy prices for a while, we are going to focus on other core economic concerns that are actually hurting you more than the price of oil. We know that it's hard to watch the numbers run up at the pump, but remember, the price of health care, stagnating wages, and the cost of college tuition and preschool are much greater burdens. We're going to lessen these costs in a big way to help us through this tough time.

This is not only the correct strategy, but the only way to beat the rightwing PR machine that knows that pocketbook issues dominate right now. If progressives can craft an effective two-pronged strategy they will win this issue.

Not Lovins nukes

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:38:22 PDT

By Erik Hoffner

It's not news that Amory Lovins opposes the expansion of nuclear power (unlike Obama and McCain) -- it was gnawed over here at Grist quite a bit. But in case you'd like to hear, rather than read, his arguments against (which are largely economic), then Democracy Now! radio has it all for you here. There's a transcript, too, for you bibliophiles which simply insist on reading.

Target practice

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:04:54 PDT

By Ken Johnson

Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity generation within 10 years may seem, at first blush, to be so far out in left field as to lack any seriousness -- but it has some commonality with established regulatory policy. For example, California's global warming law (AB 32) is rooted in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05, issued on June 1, 2005, ordering that "the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels."

What is notable about both Gore's and the governor's targets is that all the numbers happen to end in zero. Gore did not call for a reduction of, say, 95 percent in 13 years; his targets are evidently ballpark numbers more-or-less picked out of a hat. "One hundred percent" can basically be interpreted to mean "a whole lot" and "10 years" translates to "ASAP."

Likewise, the governor's targets for California are a little bit fuzzy. The 2010 target was apparently over-ambitious; and although the 2020 target has been legislatively mandated in AB 32, a careful reading of the statute reveals that its "rock-solid" cap is actually a little bit squishy. The legislation authorizes the governor to suspend the regulations under the threat of "significant economic harm." On the other hand, the legislature also clearly anticipated possible reductions below the 2020 limit, because it stipulated an additional requirement that the regulations achieve the "maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions."

The requirement for maximum emission reductions could be the key to achieving something like what Gore has in mind, in that it represents an explicit authorization for over-compliance incentives. This differs from the "maximum cost reductions" objective of conventional cap-and-trade systems, and is better addressed by something like a carbon tax -- Gore's policy instrument of choice.

A carbon tax lacks the "environmental certainty" of cap-and-trade. However, taxes and caps are neither mutually exclusive nor incompatible policy options, and a tax would actually provide greater certainty of achieving emission goals if it is implemented as a price floor [PDF] in the context of cap-and-trade.

Any serious proposal relating to climate policy must be backed up by concrete regulatory action, and to this end the California Air Resources Board is inviting the public and stakeholders to comment on its recently-released Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan document. (Comments are requested by August 1, but will be accepted until August 11.)

A media boon for Pickens

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:30:30 PDT

By Joseph Romm

It's official: T. Boone is overexposed. His monotonous TV ad runs on an endless loop, he has testified in front of Congress, he is now appearing on every cable show, and everybody quotes him even though he doesn't actually agree with anybody but himself.

What specifically bugs me:

His ads say we can't drill our way out of this problem, but then he says we should drill everywhere -- offshore, Alaska, your backyard.
He keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles.
His plan shares a great deal in common with Al Gore's, but he still goes out of his way to diss it (inaccurately, see below): "Gore's Global Warming Plan Ignores Crippling Stranglehold Foreign Oil Has on America's Economic and National Security."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D/R ?-Conn.) said the plan is a "classically American message of honesty, determination and can-do optimism."
Did I mention he keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles, even though Russia, Iran, and Persian Gulf states have most of world's gas reserves?

The Gore critique seems to me particularly lame, as if he can't stand to share the stage with anyone else. Why else release such a petty statement as this:

"Today, former Vice President Al Gore put forward a framework of a plan that is focused on global warming and climate issues. My plan is aimed squarely at breaking the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country and the $700 billion annual impact it has on our economy. We import 70% of our oil and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem, it is clear that he and I have two different objectives and our plans should be viewed with that in mind."

"I believe that elements of any realistic plan to reduce our deadly addiction to foreign oil should encompass the following:

- Will it slash oil imports by at least 30% in 10 years?
- Does it rely 100% on domestic energy resources?
- Does it rely on existing and proven technologies?
- Can it be on line within 10 years?
- Can it be done by private investment?"

Unveiled on July 8th, the Pickens Plan will reduce the amount of foreign oil imported by more than one third within the next decade, or $300 billion annually. It focuses on our abundant domestic renewable resources available and would harness extensive use of wind power, a resource the Department of Energy this year recognized can generate more than 20 percent of our electricity needs. This wind energy can replace the natural gas currently being used to operate power plants around the country, and the released natural gas can be redirected and used as a cleaner, more cost effective fuel in our transportation system. Pickens believes the infrastructure can be built by private enterprise within the next 10 years.

"It's time for us to take responsibility for the problem we've created and act now. The Federal Government should provide the leadership to clear the way for action and private enterprise should build the infrastructure to get it done. Only in that way can we recapture our energy destiny."

Actually, the Gore plan does move us quickly in the direction of energy independence -- and it makes much more sense than the Pickens plan, because "electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence," and we don't have enough domestic natural gas to replace a substantial fraction of oil. Also, nobody is going to build out the natural gas fueling infrastructure, since natural gas is not the transportation fuel of the future. And nobody's going to buy natural gas vehicles absent tens of thousands of fueling stations.

Electricity, on the other hand, is already available almost everywhere. And utilities have a great incentive to build out the rest of the electric vehicle fueling infrastructure. And governments have a huge incentive to promote the transition to a transportation fuel that is inexpensive and can be zero carbon.

But if Pickens is just going to be a ~~pre-Madonna~~ primadonna, the part of his plan that makes sense will, sadly, suffer the same fate as a part of his plan that does not.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The NYT's 'lazy locavores'

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:50:19 PDT

By Tom Philpott

New York Times food reporter Kim Severson has declared a new trend: "lazy locavores," people who want to "eat close to home" but are too time-strapped (or lazy) to put much effort into it.

According to Severson, "a new breed of business owner" has arisen to cater to their whims. She opens her piece with a San Francisco entrepreneur who "will build an organic garden in your backyard, weed it weekly and even harvest the bounty, gently placing a box of vegetables on the back porch when he leaves."

Wow, outsourced home gardens -- that is pretty lazy. The question, though, is whether Severson has actually discovered a trend, or merely manufactured one on deadline -- the notorious vice of NYT style writers. The answer, I think, is a little bit of both.

At its best, the sustainable/local food movement challenges the industrial-food paradigm that draws a bright line between food consumers and producers. In the industrial model, a very few people produce food (i.e., farmers, processors, cooks, etc.) and everyone else consumes it, more or less passively.

Through most of human history, production and consumption were pretty closely intertwined. Most people farmed, and even city and village dwellers kept a garden patch (and even livestock) that supplied significant calories. Nearly every household cooked its own meals -- the modern restaurant arose in the 19th century, frequented by a very narrow group of wealthy folks.

To industrialize food production, we've basically relied on fossil energy to release the great majority of people in industrialized societies from food production. In the process, we've allowed the food industry to externalize massive environmental and social messes.

Now, with fossil energy looking scarce and climate change evidently in full swing, it's surely time to reconsider the industrial model.

As far back as 1977, Wendell Berry in his seminal Unsettling of America was denouncing the consumer/producer divide. "The responsible consumer must also be in some way a producer," he declared -- that is, take more responsibility in the kitchen and the garden for food production, get to know and support the farmers in one's region, etc.

In his 2007 book Slow Food Nation, Slow Food International director Carlo Petrini took up that theme, and even coined a new word: "co-producer." According to Petrini, co-producers take an active role in producing the food they consume -- again by cooking, gardening, learning about the food system, and actively supporting the farmers in their "foodshed."

All of this leads us back to Severson and her rent-a-gardener -- the guy who moves around the Bay Area tending and harvesting the vegetable patches of the rich (presumably handing the produce over to personal chefs to whip into culinary delights).

Nothing against the gardener himself. I give props to anyone, in this day and age, who's figured out how to scratch a living out of the land.

But surely the roving gardener's clients aren't challenging the production/consumption divide, or rethinking their place within it. Rather, they seem to be viewing "local food" as an opportunity for ever-more rarefied and status-laden consumption.

This is the same idea I was trying to get at in my recent speech at the Organic Summit -- that the sustainable food-movement may be losing its ability to inspire people to think about their consumption, and instead merely giving them license to consume mindlessly, so long as they buy products with certain marketing labels attached ("organic," "local," etc.)

Outsourcing one's veggie garden seems like a prime example of this hyper-consumerist take on local food.

But most of Severson's other "lazy locavore" examples seem forced. For example:

A share in a cow raised in a nearby field can be brought to you, ready for the freezer -- a phenomenon dubbed cow pooling. There is pork pooling as well. At Sugar Mountain Farm in Vermont, the demand for a half or whole rare-breed pig is so great that people will not be seeing pork until the late fall.

Wait a minute. The practice of buying share in a cow or pig actually represents a major commitment on the part of the consumer.

Small-scale livestock farmers often struggle to find markets for the so-called "off cuts" -- essentially, everything that's not a quick-cooking steak or pork chop. By selling whole animals to groups of consumers, farmers solve that problem.

And the consumer, in turn, is confronted with a freezer full of not just steaks and chops but also stuff like pork belly, beef shank, shoulder roasts -- cuts that take skill and knowledge to turn into delicious food.

Near the end of the article, the famed novelist and homesteader Barbara Kingsolver tells Severson:

As a person of rural origin who has lived much of my life in rural places ... I can't tell you how joyful it makes me to hear that it's trendy for people in Manhattan to own a part of a cow.

I couldn't agree more. There's nothing lazy about that kind of locavorism. Severson is onto something, but she didn't quite nail it in this piece.

Gas squeeze

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:43:02 PDT

By Russ Walker

Investigative news startup ProPublica this week blew some fresh air into Albany, N.Y., with a report on state regulators' and lawmakers' headlong rush to open up more areas to natural-gas exploration.

In partnership with WNYC, ProPublica called into question the state's conclusion that freshwater sources in the state would not be contaminated by the expanded drilling. To the contrary, the news partners "found that this type of drilling has caused significant environmental harm in other states and could affect the watershed that supplies New York City's drinking water."

At issue is a proposal to expand exploration of natural gas in the Marcellus shale deposit -- a geological formation that covers much of southern New York and stretches down through the Appalachians to encompass all of West Virginia. To their credit, the top environmental regulator in Albany offered signs that they are reversing course this week -- but only after the ProPublica/WNYC reporter noted just how serious the threats are -- everything from toxic chemicals used in drilling to the upwelling of water contaminated by both natural and human-made toxins. Money quote from ProPublica: "The U.S. Department of Energy lists produced water from gas drilling as among the most toxic of any oil industry byproduct, and when the water returns to the surface, it must be dealt with as toxic industrial waste."

On Tuesday, New York Deputy Environment Secretary Judith Enck said the state would require gas drillers to disclose what chemicals are used in the drilling process. Good stuff. But as ProPublica notes, "It remains unclear how the drilling companies would deal with the millions of gallons of waste water the wells would produce. Treatment plants would need to know the identities of any contaminants in order to remove them fully from water before discharging it back into the state's rivers."

And this is a water-intensive drilling process, according to the report. The gas in the Marcellus deposit has to be extracted with the ominously named "hydraulic fracturing" process. "It will involve deeper, horizontal wells, possibly thousands of them. Each could suck up, and later spit out, between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water -- hundreds of times the amount used by a conventional well," ProPublica says.

Late Wednesday, ProPublica reported that New York Gov. David Paterson (D) signed legislation to permit the expanded exploration of gas deposits in the state, but the governor "also ordered the state to update its 1992 generic environmental impact statement in the process." According to the state's top environmental regulator, that update "will examine potential impacts from new horizontal drilling techniques, including potential impacts to groundwater, surface water, wetlands, air quality, aesthetics, noise, traffic, and community character, as well as cumulative impacts. The update will occur as part of a public process that ensures that concerns raised by residents who could be affected by drilling activities are heard and considered."

WNYC's contribution to the report is online here, or play it below: