GREAT DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE JOINED

An exciting new debate is shaping up between climate change activists and climate change pragmatists over A Blueprint for Legislative Action, a much-heralded plan to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). Vital and healthy, this debate will strongly impact the kind of climate change legislation the 111th Congress chooses for the country as the U.S. finally, under the new President’s leadership, steps into the global fight to curb GhGs.

USCAP is a potentially influential coalition of corporate and non-governmental organizations. The USCAP commitment: “We, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, pledge to work with the President, the Congress, and all other stakeholders to enact an environmentally effective, economically sustainable, and fair climate change program consistent with our principles at the earliest practicable date.”

As the new President prepares to lead the U.S. into the world’s ongoing fight against global climate change, Mr. Obama has given no indication (and none is expected) that he will turn away form the idea of instituting a cap-and-trade system similar to the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). USCAP’s Blueprint is seen as a possibly workable prototype for such a U.S. plan because it carries with it approval from a wide diversity of players, including corporate powers (Duke Energy, PG&E Corp, Siemens, etc.) and environmental groups (the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Nature Conservancy, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, etc.).

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (R-GA), a leader in the forging of conservative Republican thought, expressed grave doubts during an NPR interview January 19 about the ability of government to effectively administer stimulus monies allocated by Congress to President-elect Obama, and Speaker Gingrich is also on record opposing cap-and-trade for similar reasons.

Speaker Gingrich: “…Whether it’s a carbon tax, which I think is politically suicidal, or cap-and-trade which will turn out in the end I think to be a very complicated mess—both of those are designed to say, “We want to create a differentiation between non-carbon and carbon by raising the cost of carbon.” I would rather use tax breaks and prizes to lower the cost of non-carbon. You actually create the exact same differential either way.”

At the same time as the Gingrich interview, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff and a leader in the forging of Democratic Congressional thought, was telling the U.S. Conference of Mayors the entire success of the Obama economic program rests on how effectively Mayors and others in the trenches apply the stimulus spending soon to flow to them. There can be little doubt the same applies to those charged with implementing the cap-and-trade system that will emerge from Congress.

Like the effectiveness of FEMA in a hurricane emergency, much of the success of the stimulus program in impacting the current economic emergency and of any cap-and-trade system in reversing the global climate emergency will depend on how they are implemented.

The stimulus spending will soon begin flowing. The projects it funds will be posted on the Internet. The results will be well documented in the stock market, in economic statistics and in the well-being of U.S. citizens.

The impact of the debate over the details of cap-and-trade will not be so immediately apparent but the debate is nevertheless crucial and worth watching carefully because its outcome could determine nothing less significant than the fate of the earth.

First, the very best news: There is one point on which the debate is essentially over.

USCAP: “USCAP agrees that the science is sufficiently clear to justify prompt action to protect our environment. Each year of delayed action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, with potentially greater economic cost and social disruption…”

click to enlarge

USCAP makes bold claims for its plan: “…Thoughtful, comprehensive and tightly linked national energy and climate policy will help secure our economic prosperity and provide American businesses and the nation’s workforce with the opportunity to innovate and succeed…While we recognize that achieving the needed emission reductions is not free of costs, we also believe well-crafted legislation can spur innovation in new technologies, help to create jobs, and increase investment and provide a foundation for a vibrant, low-carbon economy…”

Among the controversial points in the Blueprint are the emphasis on deployment of “clean” coal technology and the initial allowance of “free” credits for GhGs by big power emitters in the crucial early stages of the program.

In the exciting debate emerging on the Internet, Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at American Progress, represents climate change activists who condemn any system tht allows for the extension of GhG-generating fossil fuels use. David Hawkins, who is Director of the NRDC Climate Center, speaks for environmental pragmatists.

Below are excerpts from the debate. Mr. Romm, author of Hell And High Water—And What You Should Do passionately articulated many activists’ objections to the Blueprint.

Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, American Progress/Overseer, Climate Progress blog: “I can sort of understand why, say, Duke Energy, signed on to this, but NRDC and EDF and WRI have a lot of explaining to do…this proposal would be wholly inadequate as a final piece of legislation… it is unilateral disarmament to the conservative politicians and big fossil fuel companies who will be working hard to gut any bill. Kudos to the National Wildlife Federation for withdrawing from USCAP rather than signing on.

“I think it is absurd for any serious environmental group to support permitting new coal plants that don’t capture and store the vast majority of their emissions…But it is the 2020 target and the issue of rip-offsets that make this proposal truly untenable. The Blueprint calls for requiring that U.S. greenhouse gases (GHGs) return to “80%-86% of 2005 levels by 2020.” That is essentially returning to 1990 levels, which the science clearly says is inadequate to stabilizing at 450 ppm, let alone the 350 ppm target that environmental groups should be seriously considering…

“…But the already-lame USCAP proposal shoots itself in the (other) foot with its embrace of a staggering amount of rip-offsets…the unconscionable amount of rip-offsets USCAP embraces guts the entire effort…No serious environmental group — no person or group serious about keeping total global warming as close as possible to 2°C, no one who endorses a target of 450 ppm or lower, should endorse a final climate bill with more than, say, 5% very high quality offsets allowed.

“The USCAP proposal has other features that are problematic. For instance, “USCAP recommends that a significant portion of allowances should be initially distributed free to capped entities….” Again, Obama himself has called for a 100% auction…

“I just don’t believe the coal provisions have any real meaning and will be easily gamed or some vague language will appear in the final bill that vitiates it. There is no place to put the CO2. And it is much more expensive to build a genuine “capture ready” plant. The proposal is too clever by half…Why not just say no to new coal plants that don’t capture most of their carbon and sequester in a certified repository? … NRDC should just start by calling for a 5-year ban…"

There's a problem with a cap-and-trade system that counts on "clean" coal...From kimberleycalling via YouTube.

(Romm continued): “…I think you should pull the plug on USCAP. All I think you have done with this effort (with the help of EDF and Pew Center) is move the center to the right and vitiate the results of the election and Obama’s terrific cabinet picks. You aren’t negotiating with Congress, just a bunch of companies, most of which don’t matter.

“You have basically announced to the world with this proposal that NRDC thinks this is the best we can do. I hope to God you are wrong. Your efforts have convinced me that Obama shouldn’t push a climate bill for passage in 2009. He needs to move the needle significantly…”

Mr. Hawkins, whose NRDC Climate Center worked with USCAP to create the Blueprint, responded.

David Hawkins, Climate Center Director, NRDC: “The new Congress contains a growing number of climate protection champions…a core of obstructionists bent on using every tactic to block any action, other members who think global warming is not enough of a problem to warrant any real change, and members who are inclined to be helpful but not if it involves spending much political capital…We don’t have time to change who the members of Congress are…There are a number of ways to move Congress to act and NRDC is pursuing all that we believe will help. One important way is to engage deeper and broader support for action from the U.S. business community-a community that until recently was dominated by outspoken opponents of any action…The USCAP Blueprint you attack is an effort to get major American business leaders, joined with a number of U.S. NGOs, firmly committed to working to get this Congress to pass climate protection legislation. It is part of a process designed to make good legislation possible…

“…just saying what the science justifies does not ignite the engine of policy change unless it is coupled with a serious political strategy…Since the U.S. is late in cutting emissions, we need to make up for lost time and that argues for faster, not slower, reduction schedules. But too many actors in the political debate are still concerned about the cost and feasibility of meeting deep emission reduction targets, particularly in the early years. Changing these views is the challenge we face…

“…don’t ignore the fact that we will need more than the truth as you see it to make change happen.”

Another observation came from author-educator-environmentalist Bill McKibben, a comment that is not only as an extension of a debate that has barely begun but also as an exclamation point on the incoming President’s call for people to take personal responsibility.

Bill McKibben, author, Deep Economy: “David’s letter is a reminder of why we need to continue building a real movement to change the political dynamic. If the argument on the one hand is, we need deep cuts, and the argument on the other hand is, deep cuts are not politically possible, then the only way to change that is to build the kind of movement that make them politically possible. That’s why we did StepItUp, and why we are building 350.org, and why we’ll be doing civil disobedience on a large scale in Washington on March 2. I have no problem with David’s description of the current reality, and I trust he will do his damnedest to cut a much much much better deal if we give him some more room to work with–even if it means annoying the hell out of his partners in the business world. But giving him that room is our job–NRDC is not really set up to change grassroots sentiment.

“…in the end this negotiation is not between business and enviros, not between the U.S. and China–it’s between people and physics. And physics doesn’t bargain or compromise. So we need to make sure that people do…”

The fight is to bring GhG concentrations down to 350 ppm. From NextStepTV via YouTube.

Summary Overview: USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action
and
CAP-and-degrade; NRDC and EDF endorse the weak, coal-friendly, rip-offset heavy USCAP climate plan
Joseph Romm, January 15, 2009 (Grist)
and
NRDC’s David Hawkins on Climate, Congress and the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
David Hawkins, January (Climate Progress)

WHO
USCAP; Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, American Progress/Overseer, Climate Progress blog; David Hawkins, Climate Center Director, NRDC; author-educator-environmentalist Bill McKibben

WHAT
USCASP believes A Blueprint for Legislative Action can lead to “a fundamental shift in the way energy is produced, delivered and consumed in the US and around the globe.” It has stirred an exciting debate.

click to enlarge

WHEN
- The Blueprint was officially issued January 15, 2009.
- It follows two years of work by USCAP members, subsequent to the January 2007 USCAP Call for Action.
- Legislation bringing the U.S. into the global climate change fight by putting a price on emissions via a "carbon tax" or a cap-and-trade system is expected in the first Obama term, perhaps in the 1st year.

WHERE
USCAP represents a coalition from across the U.S.

click to enlarge

WHY
- A cap-and-trade system places a cap on the GhGs permitted to every emitter, allows credits to emit up to the capped level and progressively lowers the cap. Emitters that bring GhGs below their caps can trade their allowances on a market where emitters that must emit above their caps to do business can buy allowances.
- Either some or all allowances are auctioned by the market operator to the emitters. Profits are dispersed for the development of New Energy and to balance increased power costs.
- The Blueprint calls for a cap-and-trade system that includes:
(1) International standards for all countries that generate emissions, putting a price and a progressive cap on GhGs;
(2) R&D and deployment of technology for “clean” coal systems, “lower-carbon” transportation technologies and systems, and Energy Efficiency in buildings, industry and appliances;
(3) Mandatory , national, economy-wide timetables for implementation with the flexibility of legislative revisions, if necessary;
(4) The widest coverage of GhG controls as possible, with regulation of power plants at the point of emission and regulation of transportation fuels at the refinery gate or with importers;
(5) Controversial offset allowances for a portion of GhGs through investment in emissions-reducing technology with a regulatory board (Carbon Market Board, CMB);
(6) Controversial free initial allocations of allowances gradually moving toward allowance auctions, with provisions to see the cost of emissions imposed equitably;
(7) Extra allowances for early implementation;
(8) Emphasis on “technology transformation” through subsidies for R&D and deployment;
(9) Controversial emphasis on development of “clean” coal technology;
(10) Timetable and targets to transformation the transportation system;
(11) Immediate and aggressive implememtation of Energy Efficiency.
- If caps are strict enough, enough allowances are auctioned a high enough price and the market is made transparent enough, opponents in the debate might resolve their differences.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Newt Gingrich(R-GA), Former Speaker of the House: “I’m very cautious about cap-and-trade because I think it’s inherently politicized and it’s inherently very inefficient. Now, I’m sympathetic with the large corporations that see fifty different states adopting their own environmental standards, and suddenly see such a mess that trying to operate as a nationwide company is going to become extraordinarily complicated. And I think trying to find a different strategy—but here would be my point…”
- Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, American Progress/Overseer, Climate Progress blog: “…I think you should pull the plug on USCAP. All I think you have done with this effort (with the help of EDF and Pew Center) is move the center to the right and vitiate the results of the election and Obama’s terrific cabinet picks. You aren’t negotiating with Congress, just a bunch of companies, most of which don’t matter…You have basically announced to the world with this proposal that NRDC thinks this is the best we can do. I hope to God you are wrong…”
- David Hawkins, Climate Center Director, NRDC: “…just saying what the science justifies does not ignite the engine of policy change unless it is coupled with a serious political strategy…”
- Author-educator-environmentalist Bill McKibben: “…in the end this negotiation is not between business and enviros, not between the U.S. and China–it’s between people and physics. And physics doesn’t bargain or compromise. So we need to make sure that people do…”