WHY AND HOW TO ACT ON ENERGY-CLIMATE

The Case for Action; Creating a Clean Energy Future
May 2010 (Pew Center on Global Climate Change)
and
Senate Oil Savings' Greatest Hits; The Best Provisions to Cut Our Consumption
Daniel J. Weiss and Susan Lyon, June 29, 2010 (Center for American Progress)

THE POINT
All it really takes is a quick glance at the headlines: Maybe things are getting better in Afghanistan – and maybe not. Maybe the oil spill in the Gulf is getting better – and maybe not. Maybe the economy is picking up – and maybe not. Maybe the tornados and hurricanes and heat waves and cold spells and droughts and floods are no more than usual – and maybe not. The list goes on.

All it really takes is a quick glance at such headlines to realize that the 2 things leaders on climate change most want, (1) a cap on greenhouse gas emissions incorporating a mechanism to implement it and (2) incentives to drive the building of New Energy and Energy Efficiency, are answers not just to the problem of climate change and not just the answers to more and cleaner energy, but the answers to the whole host of woes screaming from the headlines.

About the only thing strong action against climate change won’t do is pick the next Supreme Court Justice. That, at least, is (hopefully) not beyond the capabilities of the Senate.

The Case for Action; Creating a Clean Energy Future, from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, cogently makes the case for across-the-board action on climate and energy. It is worth reviewing the arguments because the crucial Senate fight over climate and energy legislation – surely the last chance for such legislation before the coming election – will (barring the unforeseen) come to the Senate floor soon after the 4th of July holiday. Seeking to exploit common ground discovered in the wake of the national abhorrence of the Gulf oil spill, Senate Oil Savings' Greatest Hits; The Best Provisions to Cut Our Consumption, from Daniel J. Weiss and Susan Lyon of the Center for American Progress (CAP), suggests some specific measures to control the nation’s addiction to oil, points of bi-partisan agreement that could smooth the way in the Senate.

click to enlarge

The Pew Center paper begins with the fundamental point that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. The first half of the statement has become undeniable by even the staunchest of Al Gore foes. It is the second half that conservatives still find difficult to accept.

Yet as much as conservatives might wish to deny it, the fact is this: The heating is happening too fast to be explained by any natural phenomenon or combination of phenomena. In the absence of accumulating GhGs, the world’s average temperature would actually now be cooling. There are no scientific measurements anywhere that show anything but a feverish and rapidly worsening global climate.

In addition, thousands of items of independent data from thousands of separate research studies show tens of thousands of natural events occurring in a pattern indicative of warming that is over 90% consistent.

All this adds up to a preponderance of scientific evidence. It is considered conclusive. And, as the more cautious scientists point out, though it is not absolute proof, there will be only one chance to run the experiment and only one planet to run it on so it is but prudent to proceed in a planet-protective way.

The Pew paper goes on to show how the 2 basic actions to deal with the climate situation will also support improved practical outcomes. Reducing dependence on oil from troubled places and people will reduce the need for wars in such places fighting such people. The 2 actions will make U.S. energy more secure by making it more domestic and will rehabilitate the nation’s economy by shifting to domestic energy providers the hundreds of thousands of dollars per minute now spent on foreign oil.

Finally, the 2 basic actions to fight global climate change will jumpstart the U.S. New Energy economy. The cap and its method of implementation will generate revenues for the building of New Energy and Energy Efficiency infrastructure. The incentives will drive the private sector to do the same. Innovation will begin a virtuous cycle, jobs and productivity will follow and the final outcomes will be a new level of international competitiveness and a new sense of national abundance.

click to enlarge

The biggest obstacle to the realization of such a vision is neither technological nor economic but political and ideological. There is a significant minority for whom the 2 actions will not seem to be beneficial. For them, concrete steps to serve the patriotic cause of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil may be sweeteners.

The CAP authors compiled a list of measures in bills now before the Senate that could be effective, measures proposed by both Democrats and Republicans that could generate some cooperation on an overall energy and climate bill:

(1) Set an oil savings goal.
(2) Improve existing vehicle fuel efficiency requirements and set them for bigger vehicles and for all forms of transport.
(3) Create “fee-bates” to get people to buy fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
(4) Create more incentives for electric vehicles.
(5) Drive a transition to natural gas-fueled buses and trucks.
(6) Spend for and build alternative transportation infrastructure like light rail and rapid transit.
(7) Drive the use of New Energy fuels.

click to enlarge

The CAP authors conclude by suggesting 2 measures to pay for the transition away from oil without breaking the federal budget: (1) Use revenues generated by the mechanism through which the GhG cap is implemented and (2) transfer oil subsidies.

In his still most famous speech, President Obama said there are not red states and blue states but just the United States. The energy and climate issue, like so many others, divide the parties and their loyalists. What could finally unite them all – or tear them all to shreds – are the worst impacts of (1) foreign oil dependence, (2) vulnerable energy supplies, (3) a crippled economy losing to China and other countries in the race for New Energy technology, and – most of all – (4) an economy and society hamstrung by dealing with the consequences of worsening climate change.

Wouldn’t it be better to unite in the fight to prevent the worst impacts from happening? We still can. It’s something to think about over the Independence Day weekend.

Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere (click to enlarge)

THE DETAILS
Global climate change is about physics. Physics does not change because of politics. Millions of measurements show that the earth’s surface is warming. Sea level rise is accelerating. Snow and ice are melting around the world.

The mechanism by which a thin increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) levels traps the earth’s heat is established, as is the human role in the generation of GhGs. It is an established fact that the level of GhGs is higher than in at least 800,000 years and has never accumulated so rapidly.

Most recently, it has been established that only an atypically steep increase in GhGs can explain the warming. Natural phenomena (the sun and volcanoes) would otherwise be causing a cooling trend.

Research from the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) shows climate change impacts are happening now: Increases in precipitation (rain and snow), higher average temperatures and more frequent heat waves, rapidly melting glaciers and thawing permafrost, and drought-caused changes in rivers.

The changes are now affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health in the U.S. and the USGCRP predicts the impacts will increase. Only immediate action will stem multifarious impacts nationwide.

Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere (click to enlarge)

Generals, CIA analysts and high-level Pentagon officials warn that global climate change is a threat to U.S. security because it will (1) accelerate instability and conflict and (2) affect the military’s facilities and capabilities.

Dependence on oil is at the root of economic, political, and strategic problems. 60% of the oil the U.S. uses is imported. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per minute go to deeply troubled people and places. The Department of Defense appends $400+ per
gallon to get fuel to soldiers in the field. $12.38 per barrel of U.S. oil goes to energy security.

A New Energy economy that is based on electricity generated from ever-renewble New Energy sources and (eventually) alternative fuels produced domestically is the only real solution to the vulnerability. It will also free the economy from fossil fuel supply and price fluctuations.

Both dependence on fossil fuels and climate change multiply threats by making existing tensions between ethnic or political rivals worse. Those who like the political situations in Darfur and Somalia will love what climate change brings.

Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere (click to enlarge)

Military reports say global climate change will threaten military facilities and personnel. Sea level rise and worsening storms will impact coastal installations, drought will affect forces’ operational water supplies, and severe weather creates operational challenges. Global climate change will also require increased deployments to provide disaster services and deployments to quell disaster-driven violence, further stressing an already overworked military.

Building a New Energy economy will require seizing the huge business and employment opportunities in developing New Energy capacity and Energy Efficiency infrastructure. World investment in them doubled between 2004 and 2007 and markets are predicted to reach $1.58 trillion between 2010 and 2020 and $1.75 trillion from 2021 to 2030.

The nations with the technology sectors that are selling into these multi-trillion dollar markets will take home abundance. The U.S. is at present lagging. There is only 1 U.S. company in the world’s top 5 wind industry companies, only 1 U.S. company in the world’s top 10 solar panel producers and only 2 U.S. companies among the world’s top 10 advanced battery makers.

The U.S. has the technological capability but lacks supportive federal policies to drive business innovation and expansion. If federal policies fail to drive growth, the U.S. will lose jobs and revenues that could rehabilitate the flagging economy. German energy policies are expected to generate 70,000 new jobs by 2020 and 80,000 jobs by 2030.

Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere (click to enlarge)

The policies that will drive U.S. growth will come from the 2 necessary actions delineated by the Pew paper, (1) GhG caps and a mechanism to implement them and (2) incentives to grow New Energy and Energy Efficiency. These actions will inform the development of government policies that give businesses certainty, motivate investment, grow jobs and drive international competitiveness.

The 2 actions will also inspire the international community, already moving behind incipient Copenhagen Accord goals and targets, to meet and increase actions to fight global climate change and bridge international differences.

Estimates now put the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico from the BP disaster at 24,500 square miles and growing. Congressional leaders have unabashedly proclaimed it as an opportunity to bring what was thought to be a lost, a comprehensive energy and climate bill, home. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says it will come to the Senate floor in July and will contain provisions to cut U.S. oil use by one-third or more by 2030.

There are 3 main mechanisms to cut oil use: (1) make vehicles more fuel efficient, (2) make vehicles that use lower-emissions alternative fuels (electricity for cars, natural gas for trucks), and (3) build and get drivers to use public transportation. Each has variations in existing Senate proposals.

A national Renewable Electricity Standard could create more than a quarter of a million jobs. (click to enlarge)

(1) Set an oil savings goal. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore), National Oil Independence Program: Its goal is to cut oil use 8 million barrels-per-day, the amount imported from everywhere but Canada.

(2) Improve existing vehicle fuel efficiency requirements and set them for bigger vehicles and for off-road and construction vehicles, planes, trains, and boats. The Merkley bill: Increases light vehicle requirements 6% per year, 2017 to 2030, to 44.8 mpg in 2020 and 60 mpg in 2025. Sets medium truck standard at 15.8 mpg and heavy truck standard at 10.4 mpg by 2030. Sets the most specific requirements for the other vehicles. The Senate’s Kerry-Lieberman (K-L) American Power Act (APA) and the House’s Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act also have proposals on “other” vehicles.

(3) Create “fee-bates” to get people to buy fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), The Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act; Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind), the Practical Energy and Climate Plan; The Bingaman bill: Rebates $2,500 for cars with 50% efficiency improvement and $3,500 for cars with 75% efficiency improvement. The Lugar provisions are similar.

The proposed Senate climate bill could create half a million jobs. (click to enlarge)

(4) Create more incentives for electric vehicles. Obama administration proposals; Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) and Merkeley, the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act; The Senators' bill: Provides incentives for EV purchases and $800 million to 5 (so far unselected) communities to deploy 700,000 EVs by 2016.

(5) Drive a transition to natural gas-fueled buses and trucks. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Harry Reid (D-Nev), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Natural Gas Act; The Senators' bill: Provides incentives for trucking and bus companies to transition their fleets to compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and build fueling infrastructure. The K-L APA and Merkley bills have similar provisions.

(6) Spend for and build alternative transportation infrastructure like light rail and rapid transit.

(7) Drive the use of New Energy fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated the production of 22 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. It would cut 500,000 barrels-per day of oil use (if it could be achieved). The Lugar bill has a comparable mandate.

2 ways to pay for the transition away from oil without burdening the federal budget: (1) Use revenues generated by the mechanism through which the GhG cap is implemented and (2) transfer oil subsidies.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the Pew paper: “We are at an important crossroads. We can proceed on the unsustainable path we have been heading down and face energy price spikes, continue to ship billions of dollars abroad, lose out on the clean energy markets of the future, deny the best science available to us, and place our planet in increasing peril. Alternatively, we can respond to the challenges as we have done in the past and chart a new path where the United States leads the world into the clean energy future. Comprehensive energy and climate legislation can spur the development of new technologies and new job markets and put the United States on this new path. Working with the international community to develop a binding but flexible framework can ensure that all of the world’s economies embark on this important journey together.”