Meeting Reminder, Mission statement, and CEW condensed headlines
From: joanna pollock (ggg73@hotmail.com)javascript:void(0)
Sent: Sun 11/08/09 9:24 AM
Greetings All,
If possible please join us at the new Omni House today at 1pm until 2:30pm for a Climate Change Task Force discussion of current and future endeavors. I am including a mission statement for CCTF for your comment and criticism. We will go over this briefly at the meeting so bring your impressions to share. The agenda is attached to this e-mail and the CEW headlines from the last few days.
I look forward to meeting with you to discuss our plans.
"The mission of the Omni Climate Change Task Force (CCTF, originally Carbon Caps Task Force) is to educate the Northwest Arkansas citizenry about the current realities of climate change locally and globally, as well as, future scientific projections. The CCTF is committed to collaborating with similar organizations for actions that inspire the reduction of green house gases through life-style and legislative change."
Sincerely,
Joanna Pollock
CCTF Facilitator-Omni
Climate Precinct Captain-1sky
708.828.5695
Climate Change Headlines 11/5-11/6/09:
November 5, 2009
Senate trio to pursue separate climate talks, The Washington Post, 11/05/09. Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday a separate track of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant. Kerry, appearing at the U.S. Capitol with Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said the three of them would work with business groups and the White House and seek a compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate. The three said these negotiations would be separate from the work that Senate committees are doing on climate legislation -- including the markup that the Environment and Public Works Committee was supposed to begin Tuesday. NEUTRAL.
Swing Senators Push For Boxer To Cave On GOP Demands, Congress Daily, (see below), 11/05/09. Four GOP Senators who are potential supporters of cap-and-trade legislation Wednesday joined the chorus from their party in pushing Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to give in to her panel Republicans' demands for more EPA analysis before the panel marks up a bill. NEGATIVE.
Emission Allowances In The Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill, Congress Daily, (see below), 11/05/09. Like the House climate bill, Senate legislation from Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer includes detailed language as to how emissions allowances are to be distributed and auctioned. NEGATIVE.
New business group backs climate-change bill, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/05/09. A new group of businesses - including retail giant Gap Inc. and several large utility companies - joined the lobbying fray over climate change on Wednesday, arguing that Congress must pass legislation to limit greenhouse gases as soon as possible. American Businesses for Clean Energy will push for passage at the same time that other business groups, most notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, try to block or change global warming bills wending their way through Congress. POSITIVE.
Is the business climate changing when it comes to global warming? , Capitol Weekly, 11/05/09. A pair of big California companies made national headlines last month when they pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce over that business group’s stand on global warming. The departure of Apple Computer and Pacific Gas & Electric has proved to be a public relations black eye for the venerable organization. These moves could prove to be a taste of things to come. The business community seems to be headed for further splits, as more companies shift from what has traditionally been thought of as the business position—denying the reality and/importance of man-made climate change. POSITIVE.
Senate Republicans Continue Boycott Of Climate Change Markup, Congress Daily, (see below), 11/04/09. For a second day in a row, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Republican members refused Wednesday to participate in a markup of climate change legislation. Inhofe and other Republicans argue that the analysis done of the bill, based mostly on the provisions of the House-passed bill, are not sufficient to "provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how it would affect our nation's economy, jobs, energy prices and energy security," according to the letter sent to Jackson by committee member George Voinovich, R-Ohio. NEGATIVE.
Senate Democrats ready to pass climate bill Thursday despite GOP boycott ..., Washington Post, 11/04/09. Senate Democrats are likely to pass their climate bill out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee without amendments Thursday, several sources familiar with the plan said Wednesday night. Facing an ongoing Republican boycott of the committee's markup of the bill, the panel's chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is considering reporting out the measure with a simple majority, the sources said. That move would not require the presence of two minority members, which is traditionally required for a markup. Republican senators have defended the boycott, saying that they should not act on the bill -- sponsored by Boxer and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) -- until they get a more extensive analysis of it from the Environmental Protection Agency.NEGATIVE.
GOP wants more climate bill analysis, Politico, 11/04/09. Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer moved ahead with her climate bill on Tuesday, even as Republicans on the committee refused to participate in hearings on the legislation, which is a key priority for the Obama administration and many Democratic lawmakers. Eleven of the committee’s 12 Democrats attended a hearing about the bill. But only one Republican, Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, stopped by — to give a brief statement laying out the Republican objections to the pace of the legislation. “I don’t recall ever finding meaningful solutions with incomplete information and partisanship,” he said, requesting that additional analysis be completed on the legislation. “Crafting a bill that reduces emissions without harming the economy will require more than political will.” NEGATIVE.
Republicans continue to insist on more climate analysis, The Wall Street Journal, 11/04/09. Republicans continued to boycott a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee bill-writing session on Wednesday, with a lone GOP lawmaker appearing only long enough to say his party needs more analysis of a bill that aims to slash greenhouse gases. "We want to mark up this bill, Madame Chairwoman, we really do," said Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the panel's top Republican. "We want to do it together," he told Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the committee's chair. NEGATIVE.
Boxer Mulls Exit Strategy For Moving Bill, Congress Daily, (see below), 11/04/09. Facing an ongoing GOP boycott, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer continued to delay marking up cap-and-trade legislation today, even though members of both parties suggested ways to break the standoff. NEGATIVE.
Will Boxer 'go nuclear' on climate bill?, Politico, 11/04/09. Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) plans to pursue the so-called nuclear option on the climate bill on Thursday if Republicans continue their boycott of the legislative mark-up, according to Democratic aides and lobbyists. Republicans have refused to attend the mark-up of the legislation until the Environmental Protection Agency delivers an additional analysis of the bill. Boxer would "go nuclear" by exploiting a legislative loophole to push legislation through her committee without any Republicans present. EPW Committee rules state that opening a “business meeting” requires one-third of the members of the committee, including two members of the minority party. But legislation can be approved by the committee with a simple majority of members, an exception Boxer could use to pass her bill. NEGATIVE.
Inhofe makes appearance at climate bill mark-up, The Hill, 11/04/09. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) made a brief appearance at the Senate's climate bill mark-up Wednesday, marking a brief hiatus in the GOP boycott of the process. Inhofe appeared at the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee's mark-up of the Senate climate change bill this morning to deliver brief remarks and a letter containing Republican demands on how to proceed with the bill. The seven members of that committee, on which Inhofe serves as ranking member, have boycotted the mark-up being held by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). NEGATIVE.
Inhofe Fumes Over Use of the ‘Nuclear Option’, Roll Call, 11/04/09. Senate Democrats and Republicans continued their partisan staring match over climate change Tuesday, with Democrats beginning largely ceremonial committee markup sessions, while the GOP accused them of undermining the chamber’s very foundations. NEGATIVE.
Kerry, Graham, Lieberman announce a "dual track" on the climate bill, The Washington Post, 11/04/09. Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) himself announced a new "track" of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant. Kerry, appearing at the U.S. Capitol with Sens. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said the three legislators would work with business groups and the White House to forge a compromise climate measure that could get 60 votes in the Senate. These negotiations would be separate from the work that six different Senate committees are doing on climate legislation, including the markup that the Environment and Public Works committee was supposed to begin Tuesday, the senators said. Republican committee members, demanding more Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill's impacts, are boycotting that markup, so progress on the legislation has stalled. POSITIVE.
Bipartisan Senate Trio Launches Climate Change Effort, Roll Call, (see below),11/04/09. Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) formally launched their bipartisan effort to craft climate change legislation on Wednesday — even as the Environment and Public Works Committee remained stuck in partisan gridlock over the issue. POSITIVE.
3 senators join forces to rescue climate bill, The Associated Press, 11/04/09. A trio of senators with differing political views is working behind-the-scenes to rescue troubled climate legislation. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., together with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said Wednesday they would work in conjunction with the White House to patch together a bill that could pass the U.S. Senate. The three senators met individually with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Carol Browner, the president's assistant for energy and climate change. "Our effort is to try to reach out to broaden the base of support ," Kerry said at an afternoon news conference. "The key here is to really negotiate once, in a sense." POSITIVE.
Kerry, Lieberman, Graham team up to search for middle ground on climate bill, The Hill, 11/04/09. Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — none of whom are members of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee that has split on partisan lines — met with the secretaries of Energy and the Interior and the administration’s “climate czar,” Carol Browner, on Wednesday. Kerry said they were beginning a process to broaden support for a climate bill beyond members of the six Senate committees with jurisdiction. That could mean a bill that emerges from the Senate will include some tough pills to swallow for environmental groups that have been the main force behind crafting legislation to curb so-called greenhouse gases blamed for warming the planet. NEGATIVE.
Bipartisan trio crafting compromise on climate bill, Houston Chronicle, 11/04/09. A bipartisan trio of senators trying to forge a compromise on climate change legislation huddled with Obama administration officials Wednesday about their plan to combine caps on greenhouse gas emissions with expanded offshore drilling and incentives for nuclear power. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said they were working on a “dual track” to assemble a new proposal they hope would win Senate approval, even as Republicans stall a key committee's work on the issue of global warming. POSITIVE.
Graham Joins Dems, WH to Write New Climate Change Bill, ABC News, 11/04/09. A call for bipartisanship from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham today. More from my colleague on Capitol Hill, Z. Byron Wolf: With Republicans on the Environment Committee boycotting drafting sessions for a climate change bill, a bipartisan group announced today they would work with Senate leaders and the White House outside of the committee process to draft a separate bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, who has come under fire from conservatives this year for his willingness to work with Democrats on Climate Change legislation, appeared with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, at a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce the new effort. POSITIVE.
Lindsey Graham rebukes fellow Republicans: ‘The green economy is coming’, Grist, 11/04/09. While other Senate Republicans led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) boycott action on the climate crisis, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has chosen a leadership role. In a press conference today with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Graham rebuked Republicans unwilling to address carbon pollution, asking, “If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?” Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution.” POSITIVE.
Pushing for Energy Legislation, Pushing for Jobs, The Wall Street Journal/Environmental Journal, 11/04/09. The climate bill seems to be going nowhere fast in the Senate. That is driving plenty of groups to redouble their efforts to press Congress for action on energy and the climate. Today, a host of utilities—including FPL, PSEG, and PNM—announced the creation of American Businesses for Clean Energy. Most of the companies joining the group stand to gain from new energy policies in the U.S.; more here and here. That was matched by the creation of the Clean Economy Network, a group of clean-energy companies claiming 10,000 members. The action comes, in part, as a response to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s stance on climate legislation. The Chamber’s opposition to current legislation pushed some utilities—such as PNM—out of the Chamber. Much of the anxiety the Chamber talks about—the uncertain economic impacts of climate legislation—has special resonance in the U.S. industrial heartland. POSITIVE.
Leading U.S. Companies Urge Congress to Act Now on Federal Clean Energy and Climate Change Legislation, Reuters, 11/04/09. More than a dozen leading U.S. corporations -- including Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), DB Climate Change Advisors (Deutsche Bank Group), Gap Inc., and National Grid -- announced the launch of a new initiative to support Congressional action on clean energy and climate change legislation. The goal of the new group, called American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE), is to offer a platform for leading U.S. businesses to express their support for meaningful and effective legislation that will drive clean technology innovation, create jobs, and address the threat of global climate change. ABCE's message is bold and clear: "We are businesses from a broad cross-section of American industry that support Congressional action to enact clean energy and climate legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time to act." POSITIVE.
Gap, Public Service in Group Supporting Climate Bill, Bloomberg, 11/04/09. Gap Inc. and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. are among 22 companies that formed a coalition to show business support for U.S. climate-change legislation. The companies announced the group, known as American Businesses for Clean Energy, in an e-mailed statement today. Energy producers and distributors FPL Group Inc., Calpine Corp. and Avista Corp. also are members of the group, according to its Web site. “There are a growing number of business leaders clamoring for comprehensive climate legislation,” Ralph Izzo, chief executive officer of Newark, New Jersey-based Public Service, said in the statement. “We’re unified by the need for a price on carbon and policies that clearly support renewable energy.” POSITIVE.
UPDATE: Companies Start Lobbying Group Backing US Climate Bill, The Wall Street Journal, 11/04/09. Several big utilities and other companies that would benefit from pending U.S. climate-change legislation have formed a lobbying group to support action to limit greenhouse gases and counter the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been critical of some Congressional climate change proposals. The new group, American Businesses for Clean Energy, includes utilities from across the U.S., such as New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG), Florida's FPL Group Inc. (FPL) and New Mexico's PNM Resources (PNM), as well as companies from other industries including retailer Gap Inc. (GPS) and Colorado ski resort operator Aspen Skiing Co. POSITIVE.
Chamber of Commerce Thaws on Climate Bill (for Real This Time)?, The New York Times, 11/04/09. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was the target of an elaborate hoax by the Yes Men leading some major media outlets to believe that it had reversed its opposition to the Kerry-Boxer climate bill pending approval in the Senate. Now it seems the chamber has officially expressed support for legislation that would cut carbon emissions — but still in confusingly vague terms. Apparently, the organization sent a letter to Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhoff, the party leaders in the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee where the bill is being amended, supporting climate change legislation, while also requesting that a new, more balanced bill be drafted. Whether its support is genuine, or it’s just reaching for the most PR-savvy stall tactic remains to be seen. Although, considering how negative and obstinate it has been on the Kerry-Boxer bill recently (despite the loss of several of its most prominent members including PG&E and Apple), it’s probably the latter. NEUTRAL.
US Chamber Backs Most Of Kerry-Graham Climate Proposal, Dow Jones, 11/04/09. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday said it supports most of the principles outlined in a bipartisan climate change proposal offered by Sens. John Kerry, (D., Mass.) and Lindsey Graham, (R., N.C.) and the organization is open to considering a federal cap on emissions as one possible legislative solution. The comments, made in a letter to senators currently considering climate change legislation in the Environment and Public Works Committee, comes after several high-profile departures by members from the Chamber. "This really is a game-changer," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), one of the chief authors of Senate climate legislation, after reading the letter. "For them to say...they stand ready to work with us, this is a tremendous signal." POSITIVE.
Kerry: Chamber climate letter may be 'Nixon to China moment', The Hill, 11/04/09. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), co-author of the Senate's cap-and-trade proposal, on Wednesday suggested that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce could have a "Nixon to China moment" on climate change. Kerry said that the upper chamber needs to "test" the Chamber's potential support based on a letter it sent to the Senate Environmental and Public Works (EPW) Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) backing bipartisan negotiations on its climate bill. NEUTRAL.
The Vagaries of Estimating Cap-and-Trade’s Impact on Consumers, The New York Times, 11/04/09. Since the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill emerged in draft form early this year, a wide variety of reports from think tanks, nonprofits, universities and consultants have emerged — all attempting to project its impact on employment, electricity prices and gross domestic product. Some predict economic collapse, while others anticipate a burst of growth and green jobs. The disparity spurred Larry Parker, an energy and environmental policy specialist with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, to warn lawmakers last month to beware of such analyses — particularly those that purport to gauge the impact on states and individuals. NEUTRAL.
Climate change vs. American politics, The Washington Post, (op-ed/blog), 11/04/09. Ezra Klein: David Roberts wrote a smart post a few days ago explaining why the climate bill is going to suck. The answer, in short, is the Senate. Cap and trade, like every other bill, will face "a supermajority requirement coupled with an extreme, unified minority," Roberts says. "Everything else — and I mean pretty much every lamentable feature of American politics — flows out of that." That's usually my analysis of policy failure, too. But with cap and trade, I'd go further than that. First, the mechanics of the policy collides with the quirks of both our political process and of our politics. For one thing, the solution requires a tax, which is never where you want to start when you're dealing with the American electorate. For another, the burden falls disproportionately on specific states and districts, which is poison in a system where the national legislature is organized around, well, states and districts. Ezra Klein writes “an opinionated blog on economic policy, collapsing banks, cap and trade and a lot more.” NEGATIVE.
The Four Horsemen of Cap-and-Trade Defeatism: There’s only one ''Certainty'', Energy Tribune, 11/04/09. There's a rumor making the rounds among those whose goose is intended to be cooked by passage of the pending "cap-and-trade" energy rationing legislation. That rumor: "You can't just say 'no.'" In the infinitesimal chance that this rumor was started by someone other than those pushing cap-and-trade, its author has been in Washington far too long or has a cruel sense of humor. Arsonists in our national parks have done less damage than this prank is set to unleash. The idea that "you can't just say 'no'" is risible on its face: not only can you say no; sometimes you have no choice. For hydrocarbon producers, and for those among parties combusting hydrocarbons capable of taking a slightly longer view than a period of free emission "allowances," this is one of those times. NEGATIVE.
Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry?, Grist, (op-ed), 11/04/09. Eric de Place: Worries about “gaming” or market manipulation sometimes crop up as an objection to cap-and-trade, often with reference to recent shenanigans in the financial markets. Some fear that a cap-and-trade system could be manipulated to artificially raise—or lower—permit prices to generate profits for a few at the expense of consumers. While distrust and concerns about scamming a carbon market are understandable, they’re not warranted. To put some of these fears to rest, it’s informative to look at existing cap-and-trade programs. Neither of the two programs regulating greenhouse gases nor a third controlling acid rain pollutants has been corrupted by gaming or market manipulation. Eric de Place is a senior research at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, working on promoting smart policy decisions for the Pacific Northwest. POSITIVE.
One Year Later There's Still a Climate of Hope, The Huffington Post, (op-ed), 11/04/09. David Grandia: The result was that many people thought that President Obama would sprinkle magic fairy dust over Capitol Hill and that all environmental problems - the main one being climate change - would be solved. The more astute politicos knew that with Obama in the White House we would have, at the most, a fighting chance in dealing with such things. His administration has done very well in the short time they've been in office with major investments in clean energy technology and they should be commended for that. Investing in the development of solar, wind and geothermal energy sources will make the US a world leader in this booming sector and it will create thousands of new high-paying jobs. But it's not enough. David Grandia is co-founder of desmogblog.com. POSITIVE.
Al Gore advocates for gender equality, political action to slow climate change, Scientific America, 11/04/09. Slowing climate change is neither inevitable nor impossible, former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech Tuesday night in New York City. Gore, who was launching his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, said that he has "absolute conviction that we have all the tools to solve [several] climate crises." POSITIVE.
Green Ink: Oil Demand, Climate Bill Delays, and Chinese Coal, The Wall Street Journal/ Environmental Capital, 11/04/09. But consumers are wising up—the International Energy Agency will again slash its long-term forecasts for growth in demand for oil, the WSJ reports, as energy-efficiency measures trump economic recovery. Exxon and Shell accept Iraqi conditions to develop a huge oil field in southern Iraq, also in the WSJ. Cheaper natural gas prices haven’t dented natural-gas production—and if output hasn’t fallen yet, it isn’t likely to anytime soon, in the WSJ. At least the Senate energy bill offers more support for natural gas, in Reuters. NEUTRAL.
Here Come the Green Lobbyists, Emagazine.com, 11/04/09. The nation’s capital is now clogged with enough climate-change lobbyists to dole out four apiece to each member of Congress. That’s a 300% jump since 2003. At least 770 companies and interest groups have hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on global warming, according to early 2009 research by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (CPI). But that doesn’t mean the playing field has been leveled. “David is never going to be bigger than Goliath,” says Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy for the D.C.-based Center for American Progress. “We’re never going to outgun our [oil and coal] opponents.” For Weiss, there’s a 180-degree contrast between the “Davids,” those lobbying on behalf of people’s health, green jobs and the renewable energy movement, and the “Goliaths” of the coal, oil, utility and manufacturing sectors. NEUTRAL.
Clean-Energy Cause Shouldn’t Void Patents, Senators Tell Obama, Bloomberg, 11/04/09. The U.S. must “stand fast” on patent protection and resist calls from developing nations to share energy-efficient technologies to combat climate change, 42 senators told President Barack Obama. The administration shouldn’t waver in its “support of American intellectual property, American workers, and American innovators” during climate-change talks next month in Copenhagen, the lawmakers said in the letter to Obama yesterday that was circulated by Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat. Developing nations have cited a World Trade Organization ruling as grounds to break patent protections on drugs in health emergencies. Some seek a similar approach to wind- and solar- energy innovations in the name of curbing global warming. U.S. companies such as General Electric Co., which makes wind turbines, would be forced to give free or low-cost access to patents under such proposals. NEUTRAL.
Vital peatlands neglected in climate fight-study, Reuters, 11/04/09. Draining and burning of the world's peat bogs accounts for about 5.5 percent of global carbon emissions but are currently excluded from governments' climate targets and U.N. talks, a study found on Wednesday. Peat stores around twice as much carbon as all the world's trees, but compared with the well-publicised issues of fossil fuels and forests, the sector was the "Cinderella" of climate change policies, said Hans Joosten at Germany's Greifswald University, co-author of the report. "We call for mandatory accounting of emissions from peatlands," said Susanna Tol of the environment group Wetlands International, presenting the findings on the sidelines of Nov. 2-6 U.N. climate talks in Barcelona. NEUTRAL.
Poor urge deep climate cuts, Reuters, 11/04/09. Developing countries said on Wednesday they risked "total destruction" unless the rich stepped up the fight against climate change to a level that even the United Nations says is out of reach. The top U.S. climate diplomat Todd Stern blamed a "17-year divide" between rich and poor nations for slow progress at the U.N. talks meant to agree a global climate deal in Copenhagen in December, and slammed "debating society" pranks. Keeping up pressure in Barcelona, the final preparatory session for the December meeting, the poor said that even the most ambitious offers by the European Union, tougher than most nations, were far too weak for a new U.N. climate pact. NEUTRAL.
Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen, Grist, (op-ed), 11/04/09. Brendan DeMelle: The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary in order to jolt the intransigent European Union and other developed nations to move forward with serious discussions, rather than obstruct progress by bringing only lofty rhetoric and no numbers to the negotiating table. The plan seems to have worked, albeit temporarily, as negotiations resumed today about how to extend the Kyoto Protocol and forge binding agreements with the West to slash emissions and provide cash to developing nations to deal with climate shocks and facilitate clean economic development. Brendan DeMelle is a freelance writer and researcher focused on energy and climate. NEUTRAL.
U.S. Climate-Change Envoy Calls for ‘Strongest Possible’ Treaty, Bloomberg, 11/04/09. President Barack Obama’s top climate- change treaty negotiator said nations must seek the “strongest possible agreement” when they gather in Copenhagen next month to discuss a new worldwide accord for reducing pollution. Leaders should strive for a “real agreement” that goes “well beyond” a declaration to continue talks, Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, told lawmakers today at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington. Stern, citing remarks made last month by Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, said a full, detailed agreement isn’t likely this year. Instead, progress should be made on striking a “political agreement” that addresses core issues like mitigating the effects of climate change and protecting forests. POSITIVE.
Countdown to Copenhagen: Obama Aide Warns of Slow Progress, The Wall Street Journal/ Environmental Capital, 11/04/09. With a big global summit on climate change just weeks away, the top U.S. negotiator in talks aimed at forging a treaty urged Congress Wednesday to move as quickly as possible to enact caps on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, warning of “catastrophic” consequences if the world doesn’t stabilize such emissions. Todd Stern, who was testifying before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said the Obama administration intends to seek the “strongest possible” agreement to curb emissions at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen next month, but added that any deal would have to be “consistent with the science and mindful of the necessity to be practical and pragmatic.” He complained that some poor countries “prefer to focus more on citing chapter and verse for dubious interpretations” of past climate agreements “designed to prove that they have no responsibility to take action … than on thinking through pragmatic ways to find common ground and start solving the problem.” NEGATIVE.
Copenhagen reality check: Gov’ts concede new climate treaty unlikely until 2010, Grist, (op-ed), 11/04/09. Geoffrey Lean: Now it’s out in the open. Key government leaders and U.N. officials are finally, publicly admitting what they have long privately believed: there is no chance of concluding a new climate treaty in Copenhagen next month. For a full two years the world has been committed to finalizing a new agreement to succeed the present provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, with negotiations in the Danish capital set to cap off the process. But the slowness of the cumbersome U.N. negotiations (there’s still no concise proposed text for a new treaty!) and the likely failure of the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill this year have almost certainly put paid to that. So those who have been driving most forcefully to settle everything in Copenhagen are now instead focussing on working out how just much they might be able to achieve in the six and a half weeks remaining until the conference ends. NEGATIVE.
A Call for Climate Action, Emagazine.com, 11/04/09. Just before the G-20 summit meeting in Pittsburgh last September, R. K. Pachauri, chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), joined forces with John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, in a clarion call for action on global warming. Podesta and Pachuari wrote, “What is causing increasing concern, as the December UN climate summit in Copenhagen draws ever nearer, is the continuing deadlock in political action to deal with this challenge.” Admitting that the meetings leading up to COP15 have not gone well, they call for strong signals from world leaders. “[A] way has to be found to nudge the whole debate onto a more positive track,” they said, citing the need for “a step change” in the use of new low-carbon technology that can also deliver job growth. POSITIVE.
Countdown to Copenhagen, Emagazine.com, 11/04/09. Please don’t be stupid.” The speaker was Mohamed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives. He was addressing the world via video, announcing the intention of his tiny Pacific island nation (just 115 square miles, twice the size of Washington, D.C.) to go carbon neutral. Putting a British plan into action, the Maldives will switch to renewable energy by installing 155 wind turbines, acres of rooftop solar panels and a biomass plant burning the islands’ plentiful supply of coconut husks. Global warming is not an abstract concept for Pacific islanders. The Maldives (composed of 1,200 small islands and atolls) is one of the world’s lowest-lying countries, and its 385,000 people could be made homeless if sea level rises just six feet—and scientists say it will. NEUTRAL.
UN climate pact work moves on, deadline in doubt, The Associated Press, 11/04/09. Negotiators at a U.N. climate conference in Spain further defined plans for reducing greenhouse emissions and continued work on a draft climate change treaty, with next month's deadline for a legal document increasingly in doubt. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the European Union presidency, said the holdup in the U.S. Senate of a climate bill made it impossible to meet a deadline next month for adopting a binding agreement regulating the world's emissions of gases that cause global warming. A flurry of diplomatic activity reflected high tensions worldwide as two years of negotiations approach a climax at a major climate conference opening Dec. 7 in Copenhagen. NEUTRAL.
Groups Push U.S. and China on Carbon Capture and Storage Technology, The New York Times, 11/04/09. Three prominent American research organizations that are pushing for greater cooperation between the Obama administration and China on the issue of climate change say the two governments should make a priority of supporting the use of carbon capture technology and the creation of a market for carbon. The organizations, the Asia Society, the Center for American Progress and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are putting out two separate reports this month that urge the two governments to put more money into projects in China that can better develop the technology of carbon capture and sequestration, commonly called C.C.S. The process captures carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and power plants before they enter the atmosphere and stores them underground, usually in geological formations. NEUTRAL.
U.S. puts onus on China for climate deal, Grist, 11/04/09. The United States will not agree to targets cutting greenhouse-gas emissions unless developing countries, particularly China, make similar moves, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern warned Wednesday. “No country holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China,” Stern told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, weeks before a major climate change summit in Copenhagen. Stern said new climate rules could include exemptions for developing countries to ensure that growth is not hampered, but emerging giants like China, India, and Brazil should pull their weight. “What we do not agree with, though, is that we should commit to implement what we promise to do, while major developing countries make no commitment at all,” he said. NEUTRAL.
Africa returns to Barcelona talks, while U.S. resists giving up the numbers, Grist, (op-ed), 11/04/09. Keith Schneider: The African nations that walked out of the climate negotiations on Monday, just hours after the Barcelona meeting started, returned late yesterday. The point of the day-long demonstration was made. Delegates of the 192 nations gathered here to make significant progress on a new climate treaty next month in Copenhagen are frustrated, terribly frustrated with the United States for not taking two momentous steps. One is defining the quantity of carbon it is ready to remove from the atmosphere. And the second is putting on the table a definite dollar amount the U.S. is prepared to invest to help developing nations make the transition to cleaner and economically greener economies. Keith Schneider, a former national correspondent and a contributor to theNew York Times. NEUTRAL.
Swing Senators Push For Boxer To Cave On GOP Demands
CONGRESS DAILY - Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009
Four GOP Senators who are potential supporters of cap-and-trade legislation Wednesday joined the chorus from their party in pushing Environment and Public Works ChairwomanBarbara Boxer to give in to her panel Republicans' demands for more EPA analysis before the panel marks up a bill.
Boxer's panel is proceeding with a markup "without a clear picture of the bill's impacts on our economy," Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote EPA Administrator Jackson. "We share the concerns of our colleagues and encourage you to expeditiously provide the information" requested by the Republicans, they wrote. "We cannot support legislation without this information."
They added, "We are committed to an open process in which information is readily available to our colleagues and the public." The letter follows a similar request sent this week to Boxer from the ranking Republicans on all six panels with jurisdiction over a climate and energy bill.
Senate Majority Leader Reid has agreed to ask EPA for a five-week analysis of any broader climate bill before it hits the floor, Boxer said, possibly negating any need for her to adhere to the request of Republicans for more agency work before she reports out a bill.
She has continued to set up a confrontation with committee Republicans that could involve her trumping their objections to taking up a bill and potentially amending it before it is reported out of the panel.
Republicans boycotted a 45-minute briefing Wednesday afternoon given by four Democratic aides on the committee and did not show up to one Tuesday by a key EPA official on the bill's cost.
"I think the record we're building here is very, very solid for our action," Boxer said. "The reason for not showing up is totally without merit."
Boxer is reconvening the panel this morning for a third day this week of meetings on the bill that have only featured speeches by panelists. There was speculation off Capitol Hill that Reid has asked Boxer to wait until Tuesday before she moves to mark up a bill over Republican objections, but that has not been verified by aides to either senator.
While partisan rancor has so far sidetracked consideration of climate legislation in Boxer's panel, it is unclear whether that will affect the broader Senate debate.
"I mean, presumably, the cliché answer would be 'yes' and the real answer is 'I don't know,'" Senate Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller said.
The West Virginia Democrat -- whose panel has partial jurisdiction on a bill and is a potential swing vote -- does not believe the full Senate will take up a climate bill this year because of the healthcare debate and said there are staff rumblings about putting off debate until after the 2010 midterm elections.
"Maybe it makes some sense -- you don't do it in 2010 because everybody's up for election and all that kind of stuff," said Rockefeller, who added he would like to debate climate change next year.
"There's no way we can afford to do that," said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry said of delaying the climate debate until 2011. "I don't know what an election has to do with the temperature of the Earth. ... This is not an issue that should be dominated by politics."
"If you get into September of next year or something, you know, that's a different story," Kerry added. But he thinks Congress will act sooner and Boxer's panel will approve a bill by the time United Nations climate change talks start in Copenhagen in December.
At the same time, senators in both parties say there is an unprecedented level of partisanship evident in this year's stimulus, healthcare and now climate debate. "The polarization in this Congress is the worst that I've ever seen it," Collins said. "And clearly is hampering our ability to sit down and come up with common sense solutions" to a variety of problems.
Kerry, Graham and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., are leading an effort to try to get around partisan roadblocks in the full Senate. "What I'm trying to do is create a new pathway forward that doesn't have baggage," Graham said.
At the same time, Kerry and Graham have taken different sides in the standoff on Boxer's panel. "Sen. Boxer, we think, is doing an extraordinary job in her committee," Kerry said. "She needs to do what she needs to do as the chair of her own committee, and I support that," Kerry said.
Kerry, Graham and Lieberman met with Energy Secretary Chu, Interior Secretary Salazar and White House climate czar Carol Browner to gauge the administration's limits on adding help for nuclear energy, domestic oil and gas production and other language to a bill. It is part of their effort to lead the development of a bill with input from the White House and the six relevant committees that Reid will need to package together.
Graham said it is unlikely to include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has sharply split the two parties. "I don't think so," he said. "You know, I'm somewhere between Inhofe and Al Gore on this whole issue, so I know there'll be political bridges too far," he said, referring to Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe.
Kerry declined to say whether they would go further on offshore drilling than a bill passed this year with support in both parties in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that Reid would presumably combine with a cap-and-trade bill. "We're just at the beginning stage here," he said.
Kerry said at a Wednesday morning event hosted by National Journal that offshore drilling should occur "where feasible and where you don't run into inappropriate risks" with ocean current and oil spills and other potential hazards. "But our technology is much better," he said, echoing a rallying cry of many Republicans who have been pushing in recent years for expanding drilling in federal waters. In addition, "It absolutely pays for the United States to be doing that in our waters" instead of importing more foreign oil, Kerry said.
On nuclear energy, Kerry said expediting permitting of reactors is necessary. "I think it's inexcusable ... for the private sector to have to wait eight to 10 years for the government to do its job," Kerry said. He also said senators are "open to the idea that there may be some loan possibilities" to incentivize new reactors "but commensurate with certain other responsibilities" in waste management and nuclear proliferation. "The responsibility goes on both sides," Kerry said.
by Darren Goode
Emission Allowances In The Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill
CONGRESS DAILY - Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009
Like the House climate bill, Senate legislation from Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer includes detailed language as to how emissions allowances are to be distributed and auctioned. The chart below shows what percentage of the allowances various programs would receive.
Senate Republicans Continue Boycott Of Climate Change Markup
CONGRESS DAILY - Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009
By Juliana Gruenwald
WASHINGTON (Nov. 4, 2009) - For a second day in a row, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Republican members refused Wednesday to participate in a markup of climate change legislation.
Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., however, appeared at the start of the panel's markup meeting to deliver a letter sent to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Jackson detailing the GOP's demands and make some remarks. Republicans are pushing for a more comprehensive analysis of the bill (S. 1733), crafted by Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Inhofe and other Republicans argue that the analysis done of the bill, based mostly on the provisions of the House-passed bill, are not sufficient to "provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how it would affect our nation's economy, jobs, energy prices and energy security," according to the letter sent to Jackson by committee member George Voinovich, R-Ohio.
"We want to mark up this bill," Inhofe said during his brief appearance at the markup. "We have a pathway to do that."
Boxer said such an in-depth study would take five weeks to conduct and would provide little additional insight. She noted that the EPA has done more analysis of the bill than on any other energy legislation in recent years and added that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to ask the EPA to do the comprehensive analysis Republicans are seeking after the committee approves the bill and it is merged with other climate change legislation. Boxer also offered to bring back EPA Associate Administrator David McIntosh, who appeared before the committee on Tuesday, to answer any GOP questions. "I appreciate your stopping by and hope you come back soon," Boxer joked to Inhofe, "I hope you bring back some friends."
Even if the panel agrees to the GOP's request for a more comprehensive EPA analysis, Boxer and others questioned Inhofe about whether the GOP would seek a new analysis after every major change to the bill. "At what point does this end," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked Inhofe.
The Boxer-Kerry bill aims to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. The bill would apply to the largest polluters, which account for three-fourths of U.S. carbon emissions. Supporters say 98 percent of U.S. businesses and all farmers would be exempt from the bill. The bill would establish a cap-and-trade system that allows companies to buy and sell pollution vouchers as an incentive to reduce pollution. It also would provide additional incentives to seek cleaner forms of energy such as natural gas and wind and solar power and also would provide rebates to low and moderate-income Americans to offset potential increases to their electricity bills.
Boxer has suggested that the committee could move forward without Republicans. She said following the committee's morning session that the panel would meet again on Thursday. Boxer wouldn't say whether the panel will move ahead if the GOP refuses to participate in the markup, except to insist that the panel "will follow the committee rules to a T." The panel's rules require that at least two members of the minority party be present for the committee to obtain a quorum, but the rules also say measures can be reported out of the committee as long as a majority of committee members vote for it in person.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. urged Boxer to move forward even if Republicans refuse to participate. "No matter how many times EPA analyzes the bill, the conclusions are the same," Lautenberg said. "We are in a crisis. The human race is at risk." He added that if the GOP members "don't want to be in the game, than they need to step aside and let us take care of the people on our own."
But Inhofe said moving ahead without the Republicans would "would be unwise," adding that the committee has many other important issues to consider including highway and water legislation. "We need to protect the integrity of the committee," Inhofe said.
The panel planned to meet again Wednesday afternoon so committee staff can walk through the details of the bill for member
Boxer Mulls Exit Strategy For Moving Bill
Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009
Facing an ongoing GOP boycott, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer continued to delay marking up cap-and-trade legislation today, even though members of both parties suggested ways to break the standoff.
To continue official work on the bill or to hold a vote, Boxer would have had to overcome the objections of all seven panel Republicans, who are asking EPA to conduct a more thorough cost analysis of the legislation, which is sponsored by Boxer and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry.
Boxer is likely to move the measure soon, as she and other panel Democrats have consistently criticized Republicans for the boycott, defending the analysis already completed by EPA as well as the way Boxer has handled the process.
"Stay tuned, you'll know very soon," Boxer told reporters after the panel's session this morning when asked whether she will try to mark up the bill without Republicans. "That's what I hope to be doing," she had noted earlier at the meeting. Democrats have filed about 80 amendments, Boxer said.
Boxer may give more details about her plans when she reconvenes the panel this afternoon. She said the panel will also convene again Thursday, although it was unclear whether it would go beyond the speeches that have been given today and Tuesday.
Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe, the only Republican to appear at today's meeting, made a short statement and put into the record a letter from fellow panel Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, to EPA Administrator Jackson asking for a full EPA cost analysis of the bill.
"I have it in writing exactly what we want," before Republicans will participate in a markup, Inhofe said.
Meanwhile, a trio of senators is meeting today with White House officials to find a way to get 60 votes in the full Senate. Kerry, joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., andJoseph Lieberman, D-Conn., are sitting down with Energy Secretary Chu, Interior Secretary Salazar and White House climate czar Carol Browner to determine the administration's positions on including support for nuclear energy, domestic oil and gas production and other language that could be used to get enough bipartisan support for a broader climate and energy bill.
"We think we have a good team here to help create a dual track," combining White House advice with what is occurring on Boxer's committee and the other five panels that have jurisdiction, Kerry told reporters alongside Graham and Lieberman after their meeting with Chu. "The key is to really negotiate once," Kerry said.
He declined to offer details about the meeting with Chu or to set a timeline for the three of them to give legislation to Senate Majority Leader Reid so that he can put together a bill for the floor. "We're not going to bind ourselves to a specific timeline," Kerry said.
Graham told reporters of Chu. "He's great. He's a very good nuclear guy." On whether there was talk about nuclear waste and its potential reprocessing, Graham said: "That's tough. He's convinced me that there's maybe a way to skip over the French model and that we have 50 to 60 years." The meeting with Salazar would touch upon helping domestic oil and gas production.
by Darren Goode
Inhofe Fumes Over Use of the ‘Nuclear Option’
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Nov. 4, 2009, 12 a.m.
Senate Democrats and Republicans continued their partisan staring match over climate change Tuesday, with Democrats beginning largely ceremonial committee markup sessions, while the GOP accused them of undermining the chamber’s very foundations.
As promised, Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) began the markup of her climate change bill without Republicans, who are boycotting the proceedings because Boxer has refused to ask the Environmental Protection Agency for a new full-scale analysis of the legislation’s effects.
Boxer held an afternoon session with members of the EPA present to discuss the economic effects of the bill, then briefly gaveled a second “markup” session to order. Sitting alone in the committee room, Boxer brought the symbolic briefing to a close after a few minutes, announcing that she would resume work Wednesday morning.
Republicans denounced Boxer’s efforts to mark up the bill. Ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) dubbed the decision to conduct the markup without Republicans a “nuclear option” and charged that Boxer was “destroying the integrity of the committee system. We have committees for a reason.”
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), an EPW member, accused Boxer and Democrats of attempting to force through a “Washington slush fund.”
“We want to participate in any clean energy bill, but we’re not willing to do that until we know what it costs,” Alexander said. “We’re not about to begin to vote on a national energy tax that collects hundreds of billions of dollars and puts in a Washington slush fund and starts handing it out all around the country without knowing exactly the consequences of that.”
Although there have reportedly been some efforts at the staff level to find a way forward, particularly between Democrats and more moderate members such as Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), by late Tuesday neither Boxer nor Inhofe seemed inclined to budge.
“We are not going to do anything until we have the comprehensive analysis,” Inhofe vowed following Boxer’s brief afternoon attempt at a markup.
Boxer sounded equally resolute, arguing that “we are working at reporting this bill out of committee.” She said GOP complaints about a lack of sufficient analysis of the bill were without merit. “When you’re faced with an issue that is unreal, you need to be honest,” Boxer said. “They have an unreal issue.”
Chummy Past
The spat stands in marked contrast to the chummy relationship Boxer has enjoyed with most of the panel’s Republicans on a host of infrastructure bills she has moved over the past three years. Indeed, while many in both parties were originally wary that their partisan tendencies could gridlock the committee, Boxer and Inhofe enjoyed a fairly successful partnership — at least until now.
When asked if the spat would hurt their efforts to pass a new transportation bill, Inhofe said “no.” “I don’t think so. We’re on the same side on that. ... You guys [in the press] don’t believe it, but we have a good relationship.”
Likewise, Boxer said there has been no impact on their relationship from the climate fight. “We’re personally very friendly. This is just a difference of opinion. They don’t want a climate bill.”
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), who has worked closely with Boxer and Inhofe on the transportation bill, said that despite their passions, members of the committee are able to separate their work on partisan issues such as climate policy and infrastructure bills or other less heated areas.
“We know we don’t always agree,” Bond said. “That’s the beauty of this place. If you could never work with people you don’t agree with, it’d be an awfully lonely place.”
But Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one moderate Senate Republican targeted as a possible supporter of an eventual climate compromise, warned that the climate fight appears to be part of a broader partisan schism that has deeply divided the chamber and made bipartisanship difficult.
Pointing to the health care and climate debates, Collins warned that “the polarization in this Congress is the worst I’ve ever seen it and is affecting our ability to work together.”
Bipartisan Senate Trio Launches Climate Change Effort
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Nov. 4, 2009, 2:09 p.m.
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) formally launched their bipartisan effort to craft climate change legislation on Wednesday — even as the Environment and Public Works Committee remained stuck in partisan gridlock over the issue.
With GOP Members boycotting EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) markup of her climate change bill, Kerry said he and his colleagues were moving forward with their “dual track” plan to take on the matter.
According to Kerry, the group’s plan is to “create a dual track ... that is [being] done with the full support and consent of Sen. Boxer and other Senators involved in this process, including Majority Leader Harry Reid” (D-Nev.).
Indeed, Kerry said the group, which met with Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Wednesday morning, plans on incorporating aspects of climate legislation being worked on by Boxer, as well as the six other committees with jurisdiction, and will present Reid with a “framework” for moving a compromise bill.
Despite hesitation from conservatives and moderate Democrats to tackle climate change this year, Graham and Lieberman argued the Senate must act in the next year.
Graham called this year a “once-in-a-lifetime [chance] politically to solve two real problems,” referring to climate change and reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Likewise, Lieberman argued that, “This is the year we’ve got to reach out to each other to get 60 votes. ... This is the session of Congress that we’ve got to get started.”
But while Kerry, Lieberman and Graham were calling for a bipartisan solution, partisan politics continued to stymie efforts to pass legislation in EPW.
Boxer gaveled in the second day of her markup Wednesday morning with little expectation that Republicans will return to the table anytime soon. Although all of the committee’s Democrats came to the markup, only ranking member James Inhofe (Okla.) represented the Republicans — and even then, Inhofe’s only purpose was to reiterate GOP demands that a new EPA review of the legislation be done before the markup proceeds.
November 6, 2009
Climate Bill Shows Democrats' Unease, The Wall Street Journal, 11/06/09. Divisions among Democrats were on display Thursday in a Senate committee vote approving a climate-change bill. Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) voted against his own party's climate-change bill, calling for a scaled-back measure that might win more bipartisan support. Mr. Baucus, a key player in the health-care overhaul debate, said the measure set too ambitious a target for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, and hadn't done enough to protect farmers. Republicans boycotted the 11-1 vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. They said more study needed to be done on the potential harm to the economy from the measure's cap on emissions, and its requirement that businesses buy permits, which could be traded, to emit carbon dioxide and other gases. NEGATIVE.
Democrats move on emissions bill, The Washington Post, 11/06/09. Disregarding a Republican boycott, Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed legislation Thursday that would impose a mandatory curb on greenhouse gas emissions. The move to report out the bill sponsored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and the panel's chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), highlighted the divisiveness of the current proposal, as well as Democrats' eagerness to demonstrate they are making at least some progress before international climate talks next month in Copenhagen. Even as the panel approved the measure on a vote of 11 to 1 -- with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) opposing it because he said it included climate targets that are too steep and would not do enough to protect farmers -- attention shifted to Kerry's efforts to collaborate with Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a different bipartisan measure that would seek to expand the number of nuclear reactors and oil drilling off U.S. coasts. Many senators see these talks -- rather than the bill approved in committee -- as the main vehicle for any legislation that would reach the floor. NEUTRAL.
Environmental groups at odds over new tack in climate fight, The Washington Post, 11/06/09. A curious debate has broken out among American environmental groups, as the Senate balkily starts to focus on the threat of climate change. Now, some groups have muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers and rising seas. Not because they've stopped caring about them -- but because they're trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill's non-environmental side benefits, such as "green" jobs and reduced oil imports. Smaller environmental groups, however, say this is the wrong moment to ease up on the scare because that might send the signal that a weaker bill is acceptable. NEUTRAL.
Reaction To Climate Move Is Swift From Swing Senators, Congress Daily, (see below), 11/06/09. Potential Senate Republican backers of climate legislation say the decision Thursday by Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats to report a bill under protest from all GOP panelists might have essentially killed it. NEGATIVE.
Climate-Accord Deadline May Slip a Year as Nations 'Play Games', Bloomberg, 11/06/09. The deadline for 192 countries to complete a new global-warming accord may slip by as much as one year, as negotiators hold back on pledges to slash emissions or pay financial aid to poor nations. Yvo de Boer, the United Nations supervisor for climate talks, said yesterday in an interview that too little progress has been made to conclude a treaty at a summit in Copenhagen next month, and it may take another year. He spoke in Barcelona, where the final talks before Copenhagen end today. The most powerful nations are holding back their biggest cards in what envoys liken to game-playing. The U.S., the second-largest greenhouse-gas producer after China, won’t say how much aid it may offer. China has pledged no specific emissions goals. And Japanese and European delegates said they may not put concrete numbers for funding on the table until the two-week Danish summit is almost finished. NEGATIVE.
Senate Democrats pass bill to curb emissions without GOP, Washington Post, 11/05/09. Disregarding a Republican boycott, Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed legislation Thursday morning that would impose a mandatory curb on greenhouse gas emissions. Although the move to report out the bill authored by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and the panel's chairman, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), represents a modest step forward in the Democrats' effort to enact a climate bill, it underscored the divisiveness of the current proposal. The measure was moved out of committee on an 11 to 1 vote among Democrats with Republicans declining to show up for the vote on the grounds that the Environmental Protection Agency needs to run a more extensive analysis of the bill. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) opposed it because he said it included climate targets that are too steep and did not do enough to protect farmers. NEGATIVE.
U.S. Senate panel approves Democratic climate bill, Reuters, 11/05/09. A controversial climate change bill cleared its first hurdle in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, allowing President Barack Obama to tout progress in the run-up to next month's global warming talks in Copenhagen. Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ignored a Republican boycott and used their majority to approve the legislation that would require U.S. industry to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels. "I think this is a great signal for Copenhagen that there's a will to do what it takes to advance this issue," committee Chairman Barbara Boxer told reporters after her panel voted. NEUTRAL.
Senate Democrats advance climate bill without GOP, The Associated Press, 11/05/09. Ignoring a Republican boycott, Senate Democrats pushed a precedent-setting climate bill through a key committee Thursday. Rep. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, had delayed the crucial vote for days because of a Republican protest over whether the cost of the legislation had been fully examined. But the California Democrat moved quickly to pass the bill, which for the first time would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases, without any of the seven GOP senators on the panel present. The measure cleared the panel on a 11-1 vote. Boxer said the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars." "Advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need," said Boxer, who introduced the bill along with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. in late September. "We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have had the will to move this bill forward."NEUTRAL.
Senate Democrats Pass Carbon Plan Over GOP Boycott, Bloomberg, 11/05/09. Senate Democrats won committee approval today of a “cap-and-trade” bill to reduce U.S. greenhouse gases over the objection of Republicans, who say the legislation is being rushed. Eleven of the 12 Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee backed the measure. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, voted against the bill. None of the seven Republicans on the committee were present for the vote.NEUTRAL.
Senator Baucus says opposes Kerry-Boxer climate bill, Reuters, 11/05/09. U.S. Senator Max Baucus, an influential moderate Democrat, announced his opposition on Thursday to a climate change bill crafted by fellow Democrats John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Baucus said he would vote against the bill being considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions it requires by 2020 is too high. He will seek a 17 percent cut, he said, in future work on legislation. NEUTRAL.
Senate Panel Clears Climate Bill; Republicans Boycott Vote, Dow Jones, 11/05/09. A U.S. Senate panel on Thursday cleared a climate bill that would reshape the U.S. economy, in a rare vote in which Republicans boycotted the vote. By 10-1, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the measure. The only Democrat to vote "no" was Sen. Max Baucus, (D., Mont.), a sign that the climate measure is likely to face major revisions as it works its way through five other committees before reaching the U.S. Senate floor. Democrats acted without the participation of Republicans, who stayed away to protest a lack of a complete analysis of the measure. Under the bill, companies would have to hold permits for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. NEUTRAL.
Democrats Push Climate Bill Through Panel Without GOP Debate, New York Times, 11/05/09. In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans. The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana. The seven Republicans boycotted the committee meetings this week, saying they had not had sufficient time to study the bill and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a thorough study of its economic costs and benefits. The move suggests that President Obama and Democratic supporters of the bill will have serious problems assembling the votes needed to enact it when it comes to the Senate floor, probably not before next year. NEGATIVE.
EPW Dems End-Run Boycotting GOP, Vote 11-1 for Climate Bill, New York Times/Greenwire, 11/05/09. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats quashed a three-day-long Republican boycott and passed global warming legislation today using a procedural move that could undermine support from moderate senators if the bill reaches the floor. Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and 10 Democrats signed off on the climate bill -- without considering amendments -- after trying without success to wait out Republicans. Montana's Max Baucus was the lone Democrat to vote against the legislation, saying he was unable to get his concerns addressed in amendments. He favors easing the measure's 2020 emission limits. Baucus explained that he still wanted to help the bill win 60 votes on the floor, and he expected to play a large role going forward as chairman of the Finance Committee and as a senior member of the Agriculture panel. NEUTRAL.
Climate Bill Clears Senate Committee 11-1, Wall Street Journal, 11/05/09. A Senate committee cleared its version of a climate and energy bill, despite a Republican boycott of the vote and a "no" from powerful Montana Democrat Max Baucus. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's 11-1 vote to approve the climate proposal may have little long term significance in shaping the final bill. Negotiations to shape a Senate climate bill have already moved beyond the committee and its chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) is working with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman to develop a compromise package that would give more benefits to the oil and nuclear-power industries. The vote tally was initially given as 10-1. Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware showed up after the vote and said he would have voted "yes." The panel changed the tally to reflect his support. NEUTRAL.
Boxer Rebellion: Senate Panel Approves Climate Bill Without GOP, Wall Street Journal/ Environmental Capital, 11/05/09. Okay, so Sen. Barbara Boxer has moved the energy and climate bill out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the Senate floor. That doesn’t get the bill any closer to garnering 60 votes, but as Sen. Boxer said, it can’t get 60 votes while stuck in committee, either. The chairwoman of the environment committee defended her decision to pass the bill despite a Republican boycott; usually, Senate panels require at least a token presence of the minority party. Rules do allow for a simple majority vote, rules that “are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act,” Sen. Boxer said. The GOP wants to see more economic analysis of the impacts of the bill, which would create a cap-and-trade program, but Sen. Boxer said another report by the Environmental Protection Agency would be “duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” The EPA did sort of analyze the current Kerry-Boxer bill, but it largely cribbed from an earlier analysis of a similar House bill. NEGATIVE.
Ignoring GOP, Senate enviro panel passes climate bill, The Washington Times, 11/05/09. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Thursday passed a sweeping climate change bill co-authored by Chairman Barbara Boxer and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., with none of the panel's seven Republicans participating in the 11-1 vote. The legislation will not go directly to the Senate floor. It will instead become a starting point for extensive negotiations among senators led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The committee approval's of a climate change bill was also designed to show other nations that the U.S. was serious about cutting carbon dioxide emissions. NEGATIVE.
Republican Senators Boycott a Vote on Climate Change, Wall Street Journal, 11/05/09. A Senate panel approved the cap-and-trade climate bill without a single Republican. That wouldn’t be much news, except for the fact no Republican showed up for the vote. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the measure 10-1, with Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) voting against it. That all adds up to major revisions ahead as the legislation works its way through five other committees before reaching the U.S. Senate floor. The bill would require companies to hold government-issued permits for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The limited number of permits would set a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions, with a goal of reducing emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and by more than 80% by 2050. NEUTRAL.
Senate panel approves climate change bill despite GOP boycott, CNN, 11/05/09. A Senate committee Thursday approved a major climate change bill despite a boycott by all of the panel's seven Republican members. Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 10-1 to send the measure to the full chamber. Because of the Republican boycott of the committee hearing that began Tuesday, the panel was unable to amend the bill. Committee rules require at least two minority party members to be present to conduct regular business, including amending bills. However, an exception allowed the committee to vote on the overall bill as long as a majority of its members were present. NEUTRAL.
Democrats move greenhouse bill along without GOP, Hearst Newspapers, 11/05/09. A key Senate committee today approved a plan to impose the nation’s first-ever caps on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, over the objections of panel Republicans who have blocked work on the measure. The Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-1 — with seven Republican members skipping the vote — to approve the climate change legislation drafted by Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was the lone Democrat to vote against the measure, primarily because of his objections to the bill’s mandate. Under the rosiest of scenarios for bill backers, debate on global warming legislation likely would not begin until next spring. And Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told reporters this week that “some people are talking about not doing it until after the 2010 election.” NEGATIVE.
Climate bill passes without GOP, Politico, 11/05/09. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved climate change legislation Thursday with no Republicans voting for the bill or even participating in the process. With Republican boycotting the proceedings, Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) relied on a little used interpretation of committee rules to move the legislation. Traditionally, two minority members are required to conduct committee business. Boxer said that she passed the bill “in full accordance with long-standing committee and Senate rules.” “This is not a procedure we wanted; it’s a procedure that’s available to us,” said Boxer. “The majority has to be able to do its work…otherwise the whole Senate could come to a screeching halt.” POSITIVE.
Graham: I would have voted no on Boxer bill, Politico, 11/05/09. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham – the Democrats’ best shot at a Republican vote for climate-change legislation – says he would have voted against the bill that passed out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee Thursday. “There are simply not the votes to pass this bill through the Senate,” Graham said. “If the Boxer bill were to come to the Senate floor as written, I would vote “no.” Graham is working closely with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) to get a climate bill through the Senate. The three senators want to recreate a bipartisan effort known as the “Gang of 10,” which floated a plan last year that would have included new drilling and increased investment in renewable energy. NEGATIVE.
Without GOP, Panel OKs Climate Bill, Congress Daily, 11/05/09. Over the objections of panel Republicans, Senate Environment and Public Works Democrats today reported out climate legislation without considering amendments. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and several other panel Democrats set up the move during two meetings earlier this week. No Republicans were present for the 11-1 vote and all Democrats, except Finance Chairman Max Baucus, agreed to report it out. NEUTRAL.
Republicans boycott, but Senate panel passes climate change, The Hill, 11/05/09. The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed a Senate climate bill on Thursday despite a Republican boycott. Democrats voted 11-1 to approve the bill, with Sen. Max Baucus of Montana the only “no” vote. Baucus said the legislation’s timetable for emissions reductions was too aggressive, although bill supporters took heart in his pledge to work to craft a measure that could reach the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.NEUTRAL.
Inhofe accuses Boxer of breaking committee rules in passing climate bill, The Hill, 11/05/09. The Senate Enviromental and Public Works Comittee's ranking member on Thursday accused chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) of breaking the panel's rules by passing climate change legislation this morning. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) today on Fox News said that committee rules dictate that at least two members of the minority must be present when meeting. Boxer held a vote on the legislation, which passed 10-1, but no Republicans were present for the vote. Republican members of the committee have been boycotting the hearings all week because the legislation has not yet been scored by the Environmental Protection Agency. NEGATIVE.
Boxer Pushes Through Climate Bill Despite GOP Boycott, Roll Call, (see below), 11/05/09. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Thursday pushed climate change legislation through her committee on an 11-1 vote despite a boycott of the markup by panel Republicans. The lone no vote for her bill was from Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). POSITIVE.
Climate Bill Out of Committee, But at What Cost?, Congress Now, (entire story here) 11/05/09. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer employed an unprecedented procedural maneuver Thursday to push global warming legislation through her committee, at a cost of alienating Republicans and frustrating moderate Democrats. The panel’s ranking Republican, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, branded Boxer’s decision to approve the bill without Republican participation a “nuclear option.” Republicans have been boycotting the markup, calling for further EPA analysis of the bill’s cost. “This is not a procedure we wanted,” Boxer told the panel’s Democrats, acknowledging that it may complicate efforts to pass climate legislation in the Senate. “It’s a procedure that was available to us. It was available to our predecessors. That was why they wrote it. We need to move. The Senate should not come to a standstill.” NEGATIVE.
Senate Democrats Force Climate Bill Through Committee Despite Republican Boycott, Politics Daily, 11/05/09. Democratic senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee dismissed a Republican boycott of the panel's markup session and passed a climate change bill 11-1, with only Sen. Max Baucus of Montana opposing. When Republicans refused to attend markup sessions, committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer of California used an obscure procedure that allows a bill to be voted out of committee by a simple majority without considering amendments. The bill would mandate a 20 percent reduction in the United States' carbon emissions by the end of the next decade. "This was an extraordinary experience, and in many ways a bonding experience," Boxer said of the unusual procedure. Fellow Democrat Thomas Carper of Delaware, who has worked closely with coal mining states to develop language that would attract votes, expressed uneasiness with the move. "I don't like this process and I don't think any of us do," he said. Baucus said he could not support the legislation without several changes. NEUTRAL.
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee, Grist, 11/05/09. Senate Democrats on Thursday pushed through a sweeping climate change bill, maneuvering an end-run around opposition Republicans who continued their boycott of deliberations. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Kerry-Boxer bill by a vote of 11 to 1, with the seven Republicans on the committee absent from the discussion and vote. The panel is among five other Senate committees which also will weigh in with their draft bills on slowing the pace of climate change before a bill receives a vote in the full chamber, possibly next year. “We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott we have been able to move this bill forward,” said committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) after the vote. Republicans, who boycotted the deliberations for three consecutive days, said they would oppose the bill until they had a “comprehensive analysis” of the economic impact of the legislation from the Environmental Protection Agency. NEUTRAL.
Senate Committee Passes Climate Bill, Despite Republican Boycott, Treehugger, 11/05/09. Thought the Senate climate bill was on hold all thanks to an ongoing three-day Republican boycott of Environment and Public Works Committee activity? Think again. Using some side-stepping parliamentary procedures, committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has managed to get the bill passed by a vote of 11-to-1, AFP reports. NEUTRAL.
One Committee Down for Senate Climate Bill, Five More to Go, Environmental Leader, 11/05/09. All seven Republicans in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted voting on the Senate climate bill, allowing the bill pass to pass 10-1 in the morning hours of Nov. 5. Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont.) was the lone “no” vote. Now, the bill must wind its way through five other committees before reaching the full Senate floor, where it will need 60 votes to pass, reports the Wall Street Journal. As written, the bill would require companies and other large polluters to possess permits for each ton of GHG emissions allowed into the atmosphere. The bill has a goal of reducing U.S. emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, using 2005 as a baseline. NEUTRAL.
Boxer Pushes Through Climate Bill, SustainableBusiness.com, 11/05/09. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) pushed the climate bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday, but it's becoming clear the bill won't get far before the world meets in Copenhagen. Boxer decided to ignore the Republican boycott of the Climate Bill - and the requirement that 2 Republicans be present to vote for passage - and passed the bill based on a simple majority of people present. Only one Democrat voted against the bill, Senator Max Baucus of Montana. He chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which also needs to approve the legislation. At least two Republicans had to be present in order to debate and present amendments to the bill, so the scores of amendments couldn't be discussed. NEGATIVE.
Senate EPW Dems pass Kerry-Boxer out of Committee without any Republican participation, The Energy Collective, 11/05/09. For the past three days Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have waited for Republicans to come to the table to participate in the mark-up up of comprehensive climate and energy legislation. This morning the wait was over and Democrats moved forward on their own to pass the legislation out of committee, a controversial move that will play a role in shaping the negotiations and debate as the bill moves forward and eventually to a full Senate floor vote. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid apparently gave EPW chairwomen Barbara Boxer the green light to go ahead and vote as Republicans on the committee continued to boycott the mark-up and clamor for more comprehensive EPA analysis of costs that will result from the almost 1000-page legislation. NEUTRAL.
Climate Bill Passes Senate Committee Without Republicans Or Baucus, Atlantic Online, 11/05/09. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee managed to clear their latest cap and trade proposal, which seeks a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But it did it so without any Republicans or Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) on board. Of course, Republicans and Democrats not agreeing isn't exactly shocking. But what I do find notable is the Republicans' rationale for not voting: economics. NEGATIVE.
What does recent Senate drama on the climate bill mean? Peak Boxer, Grist, 11/05/09. There’ve been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. So let’s take a step back and try to get a handle on how the story is unfolding. In the House, the development of the Waxman-Markey bill was a relatively orderly process. Waxman took control of the Energy committee early in the session and selected Markey, who’d been fleshing out a progressive bill in his special committee, as his wingman. Together they introduced a bill and then worked it past the committee members, making concessions when necessary, mostly behinds closed doors, always tightly in control of the process. The (Senate) bill passed out of committee on Thursday morning without any GOP involvement. That bill will be a dead letter. Already there’s an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it’s associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body’s most liberal committees. NEGATIVE.
Carper Sees Limited Progress Pre-Copenhagen, National Journal, (see below), 11/05/09. In April, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer asked Sen.Thomas Carper, D-Del., to head up a working group to address some of the coal industry's concerns on climate change legislation. Carper worked with eight other senators, including six from coal states, to hammer out a plan that would encourage coal-based utilities to develop and install technology to capture power plant greenhouse gas emissions and sequester them underground. NEUTRAL.
FACTBOX-Deciphering the jargon in the climate debate, Reuters, 11/05/09. The greenhouse gas-cutting bill passed by Democrats on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is not all the climate change debate has brought to Washington. Politicians, pundits and lobbyists alike are now speaking a new jargon as they try to tackle global warming. Here are some terms being thrown around in the climate debate. NEUTRAL.
Senators Call for Financial Reform Before Cap and Trade, The New York Times, 11/05/09. If supporters of creating a cap-and-trade program to address global warming want to grab the attention of skeptics on Capitol Hill, they might start by convincing the nation's most famous financier, Warren Buffett. "We have to work it out so that Warren Buffett understands why he's better off under a trading system than he is under a command-and-control system," said Bill Tyndall, Duke Energy Corp.'s senior vice president for policy. Buffett's longstanding concerns about unrestricted financial derivatives markets have been absorbed by key senators, who continue to harbor doubts about a market-based system for reducing greenhouse gases as they consider federal climate legislation. NEGATIVE.
Climate bill to force refinery closures: Petroplus, Reuters, 11/05/09. An international pact and U.S. legislation to tackle climate change will hit oil refiners' profits and may force some to shut some capacity, Thomas O'Malley, chairman of Swiss refiner Petroplus, said on Thursday. Leaders from 190 nations will meet in Copenhagen in December to try to hammer out a new pact to fight global warming. A key U.S. Senate environment committee approved a Democratic climate change bill on Thursday that would require industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. NEUTRAL.
Bipartisan trio the great green hope?, Politico, 11/05/09. Climate bill supporters are looking to Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman as the great, green hope for getting legislation through the Senate. But a tide of bad news, turf fights and delays on the health care bill makes the proposal a difficult sell, even for a bipartisan trio with a combined nearly 60 years of legislative experience. “They’re out front at a time that doesn’t work for the rest of us because some of us are still completely engrossed in health care,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller. POSITIVE.
Stabenow Climate Bill Seeks Industry-Farm Partnerships, Congress Daily, 11/05/09. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., introduced legislation Wednesday to create partnerships between manufacturers, utilities, farmers and foresters on projects for capturing and storing carbon. POSITIVE.
FACTBOX-Timeline, comparison of us climate bills, Reuters, 11/05/09. Democrats on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved their version of a climate change bill as the panel's Republican lawmakers boycotted the vote. NEUTRAL.
U.S. Chamber Blasted for Weak-Kneed Response to Climate Change Legislation, Reuters, 11/05/09. On Tuesday, November 3, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a press release in which it said it supports strong federal climate change legislation. In a letter to Senators Boxer and Inhofe, the Chamber called for a fresh approach that strikes the right balance between new and conventional sources of energy to smoothly transition to a low-carbon future. Several prominent companies, including Apple Inc. and PG&E Corp., have recently left the Chamber in protest of its opposition to the climate bills in Congress. Tuesday's statement appeared to be a softening of the Chamber's position in response to pressure it has received from some members. Proponents of climate change legislation were quick to capitalize on the Chamber's statement. Senator Boxer immediately issued a press release citing the letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in trying to break a Republican boycott that could prevent her committee from voting on a cap-and-trade. POSITIVE.
The Anti-Chamber, Mother Jones, 11/05/09. The Chamber of Commerce may be taking an ever-so-slightly less obstructionist approach to climate issues lately. But now it has some new competition in the lobbying realm: American Businesses for Clean Energy, a coalition that has formed to push for climate legislation. The group, which debuted on Wednesday, has 23 members, ranging from retailers like The Gap to major utility PNM Resources of New Mexico, one of the companies that quit the Chamber over its climate stance. "There's a real hunger on behalf of businesses to have their voices heard, and for Congress to realize they are really clamoring for legislation," says Jenn Kramer, a spokesperson for New Jersey utility PSEG, another member of the new coalition. "Absent a price on carbon there's a real paralysis in the energy industry in terms of making investment decisions." POSITIVE.
Green Ink: Gas Glut, Climate Fights, and Black Liquor, The Wall Street Journal/Environmental Capital, 11/05/09. The IEA expects shifting energy demand to create a huge natural-gas glut which will keep prices low, in the FT. But wasn’t the shift to a low-carbon world meant to benefit, not hurt, natural gas?, in FT’s Energy Source. It’s official: China’s Cnooc will take a stake in Gulf of Mexico oil production, at the WSJ’s China Real Time blog. Maybe there’s so little fuss because of the puny pricetag: just $80 million, in Bloomberg. So what on earth is going on with the climate bill? Sen. Barbara Boxer plans to move the bill out of her environment committee with or without Republicans. But key senators—John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman—are pursuing a separate track to try to keep hopes alive of securing 60 votes for a bill, both in the WaPo. NEUTRAL.
Economists Concur on Threat of Warming, The New York Times, 11/04/09. A New York University School of Law survey found near unanimity among 144 top economists that global warming threatens the United States economy and that a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation will spur energy efficiency and innovation. “Outside academia the level of consensus among economists is unfortunately not common knowledge,” Richard Revesz, dean of the law school, said during a press conference on Wednesday. “The results are conclusive – there is broad agreement that reducing emissions is likely to have significant economic benefits.” POSITIVE.
Could Cap and Trade Cause the Next Subprime Mortgage Scale Financial Crisis?, Tree Hugger, 11/05/09. A new report from the Friends of the Earth says that cap and trade systems are dangerous. They allow traders to package emissions permits into complex financial products and sell them in bundles--much like they did with subprime mortgages. And we all know how that went. Though you may be surprised to hear this study emerge from a green group, which you'd think would be in favor of a system designed to reduce carbon emissions, remember that FoE, along with Greenpeace, actually publicly opposed the climate bill. They believed it contained too many giveaways to polluters, wasn't strong enough, and, well, that cap and trade wouldn't be effective enough. They're in favor of a carbon tax, and direct investment in cleaner infrastructure. NEGATIVE.
Bar funds for China-backed Wind Farm, Senator Says, Bloomberg, 11/06/09. The Obama administration should bar a $1.5 billion wind-farm project in Texas from receiving U.S. government stimulus funds because most of the power turbines would be made in China, Senator Charles Schumer said. “The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, wrote in a draft of a letter he said yesterday he would send to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “I urge you to reject any request for stimulus money unless the high-value components, including the wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States.” NEUTRAL.
Delegate discuss way forward in UN climate talks, Associated Press, 11/06/09. As delegates entered a fifth and final day of U.N. climate talks in Spain, European nations downplayed expectations for a legal treaty to come out of next month's key climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. Instead, negotiators were working to hammer out a draft political agreement in which rich nations would make hard pledges to reduce emissions and to finance aid for helping the world's poorest cope with the affects of Earth's rising temperatures. The shift — an implicit admission of defeat after two years of tough U.N. negotiations — follows acknowledgment that several countries, including the United States, may not be politically ready to sign a legal pact by next month. NEGATIVE.
G20 officials to wrestle over economic imbalances, Forbes, 11/06/09. Finance officials from rich and developing countries face difficult negotiations over how to even out the imbalances weighing on the world economy as they gather Friday for a summit in Scotland. Finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 will try to hammer out a peer review process aimed at closing the vast differences between countries in trade, savings and consumption that can threaten stability. Long-standing disagreements, however, suggest that progress will be slow. NEUTRAL.
Rudd Says It’s ‘Crunch Time’ for Tackling Climate Change, Bloomberg, 11/06/09. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said “do-nothing” skeptics, deniers and a “gaggle of conspiracy theorists” are among opponents impeding efforts to tackle climate change and pass a carbon pollution reduction plan. “Together these groups, alive in every major country including Australia, constitute a powerful global force for inaction,” Rudd said in a speech today in Sydney. Australia is at a key juncture ahead of global climate- change talks next month in Copenhagen, he said at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. If the nation’s politicians fail to act swiftly with new legislation, “then it will be a failure that will echo through future generations,” he said. NEGATIVE.
Negotiators scale back UN climate pact ambitions, The Associated Press, 11/05/09. With the U.S. Congress still struggling to agree on sharp cuts in greenhouse gases or how to fund them, European officials said Thursday they were now striving for a political agreement instead of a new treaty to allow the U.S. and other rich nations to make commitments that are not legally binding. The revised thinking was an implicit admission of defeat: the two-year timetable for crafting a landmark treaty will miss its deadline, and that failure threatens to deepen the distrust between rich countries and poor nations reeling from drought and failing crops caused by persistently warmer weather. The treaty had been due to be completed in December at a 192-nation conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. NEGATIVE.
Obama: US, EU To Boost Climate-Change Efforts Before Summit, Dow Jones, 11/05/09. After meeting with key European officials at the White House, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he's confident that the U.S. and European Union can agree on a framework for tackling climate change ahead of a key summit in Copenhagen. Obama said he, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt agreed to boost their efforts ahead of the crucial summit on climate change slated for December. "We discussed climate change extensively, and all of us agree that it was imperative for us to redouble our efforts in the weeks between now and the Copenhagen meeting to ensure we create a framework for progress in dealing" with the potential disaster," Obama said to reporters at the end of his meeting. POSITIVE.
Climate treaty may need extra year, Reuters, 11/05/09. A U.N. climate treaty may need an extra year beyond a December deadline to agree details, delegates at U.N. talks said on Thursday even as a U.S. Senate committee approved a carbon-capping bill. The November 2-6 meeting of 175 nations in Spain, the last session before a U.N. accord is due in Copenhagen next month, turned gloomy about salvaging a strong deal after two years of negotiations. World leaders have also said in recent days that Copenhagen may merely agree a politically binding deal rather than a full legally binding treaty. In Spain, negotiators suggested extensions from three months to a year or more. NEGATIVE.
Al Gore On Copenhagen, Clean-Energy Subsidies, and Global Warming, The Wall Street Journal/Environmental Capital, 11/05/09. Count Al Gore among those who think President Obama should go to Copenhagen in December for a United Nations conference on climate change. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, the former vice president said he believes President Obama will attend the summit; explained why he think it’s appropriate for the U.S. to subsidize companies – including some backed by an investment firm in which he’s a partner – pitching solutions to oil dependence and climate change; and weighed in on the recent decision by Apple, Inc. – on whose board he sits – to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to protest the group’s opposition to proposal in Congress that would require companies to pay for their greenhouse-gas emissions. Mr. Gore was in Washington Thursday to promote a new book: “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” Asked to comment on the former Vice President’s remarks, a White House spokesman said no decision has been made on whether the President will attend the U.N. conference. NEUTRAL.
Climate Change: What is Going to be Achieved at Copenhagen?, The Wall Street Journal, 11/05/09. Excitement is building about Copenhagen (myself, I can hardly wait). But what is actually going to be achieved at the UN’s climate change summit when planeloads of politicians, officials, NGO types and campaigners fly in? These summits are certainly great fun for those involved but what, realistically, will be the end result? President Obama has said that he wants there to be a meaningful deal at Copenhagen, and I’m sure he does, but that’s looking less and less likely. Now the U.K. government has further clouded the outlook. NEGATIVE.
Why a Strong COP15 Agreement Doesn't Matter... For Cleantech Investment, Tree Hugger, 11/05/09. With all the disappointing news about the UN climate negotiation talk shifting for reaching a legally binding deal in December to one which is merely politically binding, I thought I'd share this rather encouraging piece on analysis from Cleantech Group, which says the outcome of COP15 really doesn't matter much for cleantech investment: POSITIVE.
Road to Copenhagen: Is a 'politically-binding' agreement worthless or a path to progress?, Tree Hugger, 11/05/09. From all I can gather, the actual on-paper negotiations are moving this week, progressing in some way towards some kind of agreement. (We'll get to what kind of agreement soon.) But we wouldn't have much way of knowing, since proceedings largely disappeared behind closed doors this week. I've been told by plenty of folks--including two former US negotiators--that I shouldn't complain about the lack of access, because it's the closed-door meetings where things really get done. Still, it's frustrating that an institution that prides itself on openness seems to operate best through closed meetings. The American delegation does seem more confident at this stage that there's an agreement out there to be achieved. Whether that agreement will be anything close to what the science tells us is necessary is another question (hint: it won't be). NEGATIVE.
With Legally Binding Copenhagen Deal Dead in the Water, Where Do We Go From Here?, Tree Hugger, 11/05/09. I hate to say this, because pressure absolutely needs to be kept up on politicians in the next few weeks before COP15, but the green community needs to read the writing on the wall and start moving beyond Copenhagen. Despite a few policy notables, all signs point to no legally binding deal in December; and, let's be realistic, no amount of protest is going to align political will with scientific necessity at this point: Let's back up though, to check out some of those recent throw in the towel statements...NEGATIVE.
Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change, The Huffington Post, 11/05/09. The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen in December, and to halt efforts in individual countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to fierce lobbying behind closed doors, some of the most aggressive tactics deployed by resource giants such as Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal and other energy and agriculture interests are often the most public: spreading fear and misinformation about the true impact of emissions regulations. POSITIVE.
China should halve CO2 emissions by 2050-U.S., Reuters, 11/05/09, China should roughly halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as part of a strong assault on global warming, the head of the U.S. delegation at U.N. climate talks in Barcelona said on Thursday. Jonathan Pershing urged China, which has overtaken the United States as the top emitter, to clarify its goals for curbing its greenhouse gases as part of a new U.N. pact due to be agreed in December in Copenhagen. Leading industrialised countries agreed at a summit in Italy in July that the world must halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and promised to cut their own emissions by 80 percent. China should cut by about 50 percent, which would allow for somewhat lower targets for poorer countries and give them room to grow their economies, Pershing told Reuters on the sidelines of the 175-nation talks in Barcelona from Nov. 2-6. NEUTRAL.
CONGRESS DAILY - ENVIRONMENT
Reaction To Climate Move Is Swift From Swing Senators
Friday, Nov. 6, 2009
Potential Senate Republican backers of climate legislation say the decision Thursday by Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats to report a bill under protest from all GOP panelists might have essentially killed it.
"It's certainly going to make it much more difficult for people like me who believe that we do need to have some sort of climate change legislation to take seriously what the committee produced," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer "made a real mistake," Collins said.
"I think it dooms that particular legislation," Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski said. "We've been talking a lot about starting over with a blank piece of paper. I think that this might allow for that, and if that's the case, that's a positive."
Murkowski and five other ranking Republicans on committees with jurisdiction over climate and energy legislation asked Boxer Monday to adhere to the wishes of the seven Environment and Public Works Republicans and have EPA do more cost analysis of a cap-and-trade bill before Boxer's panel marked it up. Collins Wednesday signed on to a separate letter to EPA Administrator Jackson asking for the same thing.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who signed the letter to Jackson with Collins and Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said of the bill: "I don't think that's viable in its present form because of the fact that we don't know what it does. When we find out what it does, come back to me."
Collins and Snowe are the only Republicans left in the Senate who supported a cap-and-trade bill Boxer offered last year. When asked whether pushing a bill through her panel despite a GOP boycott would affect discussions with the two Maine Republicans, Boxer said, "No, I don't because ... there'll be a new bill."
She said the concerns Collins and Snowe have might be assuaged "if they knew we invited the EPA here" and that the agency did an "unprecedented" analysis already on the bill and one passed in the House this year. "I think they would understand, but I'm not worried because, again, what we're talking about in the future is this comprehensive bill," Boxer said.
Majority Leader Reid, Boxer has said, also will have EPA do a five-week analysis on a broader climate and energy bill before it goes to the floor.
Environment and Public Works Clean Air Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Carper, D-Del., suggested to Boxer that "waiting until next Tuesday might not be a bad idea and even the Tuesday beyond that ... to give Republicans a little more time to cool their jets, to come to their senses and to decide to work with us to find common ground." But the feeling among other panel Democrats was that "that wasn't likely to happen and we'd just continue to delay for no good reason," he said. He added, however, "I think on climate change there's the potential for more bipartisan than support for health care, and I'm not giving up on health care."
Graham, Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry -- who co-sponsored the bill Boxer's committee reported out -- and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., will try to put together a compromise that will take pieces of bills reported out of the six relevant committees, input from senators off those panels and from the White House.
"I'm glad the process is moving forward, I appreciate the committee's work," Graham said. "Now, it's time to find a bill that can make good policy."
The action by Boxer's committee, Graham said, actually makes his job easier. "Now, we've got the committee process, that part of it behind us, we can all start sitting down and seeing where the votes are," he said. "Clearly there are not 60 votes for that product."
After he, Kerry and Lieberman met with three key Obama administration officials Wednesday, Graham said the next step is to "see what are the good ideas that we can build upon and some of the things that we need to correct" in the Environment and Public Works bill and one approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this year.
Reid -- who will ultimately put together a final bill to send to the floor -- said the product from Boxer's panel "will be the base of the bill. They'll work around that."
Not everyone agrees. "I'm not sure that would be an accurate statement," said Commerce Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller, who opposes the bill as it came out of Boxer's committee. "It isn't a question of who does it first. It's what's going to work, what can get the votes."
Rockefeller said he has spoken to Kerry "a lot." But while Kerry is looking to make a strong statement before U.S. negotiators head into December's international climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, "I'm looking at it from a different perspective," Rockefeller said. "I've got people in West Virginia who are more scared than any time in the 45 years that I've been here." He said of the coal industry, "Basically they want it to go away."
A fellow coal-state Senator, Finance Chairman Max Baucus, was the only Democrat to vote against reporting the bill out of Boxer's committee. "The EPW bill is a very important first step," he said. "There's no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation ... probably next year."
But Baucus said some things will change first, including the Kerry-Boxer bill's requirement for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. "It won't be 20," he said. He had filed an amendment in Boxer's committee lowering that requirement to 17 percent, with a "trigger" up to 20 percent "if other countries play by the same rules." The GOP boycott prevented a quorum needed for any amendments to be considered in Boxer's committee.
Baucus' panel will have hearings and might mark up its portion of a climate bill this year, including a formula for how cap-and-trade emission credits would be allocated to businesses. The Kerry-Boxer bill uses a similar formula as in a bill the House passed this year. "We'll take a separate look at it," Baucus said. "I don't want to say we're going to do something totally different. I'm respectful of the House allocations."
Despite his 'no' vote Thursday, Baucus said reporting the bill out of Boxer's committee "frees up the Senate frankly. All members of the Senate who are interested in climate change, including those who are on the committee."
One of the arguments Boxer has made about not doing a fuller EPA analysis before the bill was reported out was that that was not done before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee marked up and approved a bill this year that Reid will merge with a cap-and-trade strategy. But Murkowski said the difference is "we spent close to seven months working through that bill, over 100 amendments worked through or adopted."
"We as a committee built it," she added.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing next week on options to mitigate climate change beyond the cap-and-trade programs that would be established in the Kerry-Boxer and House-passed bills, Murkowski said.
Without GOP, Panel OKs Climate Bill
Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009
Over the objections of panel Republicans, Senate Environment and Public Works Democrats today reported out climate legislation without considering amendments.
Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and several other panel Democrats set up the move during two meetings earlier this week. No Republicans were present for the 11-1 vote and all Democrats, except Finance Chairman Max Baucus, agreed to report it out.
"While I am voting no on this particular bill, let me be crystal clear. ... I'm going to work to get climate-change legislation that can get 60 votes through the United States Senate and signed into law," Baucus said.
The opposition of the Montana Democrat, a key moderate, highlights how much further Democratic leaders need to travel before a bill can be vetted on the floor.
Baucus said he particularly opposed the bill's requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. He said he wanted to offer an amendment calling for a 17 percent reduction, with a "trigger" requiring cuts of up to 20 percent "if other countries play by the same rules."
The Republican boycott prevented Democrats from getting the quorum necessary to consider the roughly 80 amendments they had filed. Republicans did not file any amendments.
Boxer said that although she knew Baucus was going to vote no, she felt she had "the sweet spot of the committee."
She added: "I have to hold my committee together and I did that."
Baucus told reporters he hopes his panel will have a formal markup later this year to work on issues such as how a cap-and-trade program would allocate emission credits to businesses. But he added he is not "positive" that his panel would be able to start work before 2010 because he does not think a bill will be on the Senate floor this year.
The bill reported out today is based on a roughly 950-page version Boxer released Friday. It includes a formula for allocating cap-and-trade emission credits that could be significantly modified in the more moderate Finance Committee, which is seen as more representative of the full Senate.
Panel Republicans had repeatedly asked Democrats to hold off on the markup until EPA could deliver a full cost analysis of a bill from Boxer and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry.
In a statement released after the vote, Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe said he is "deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer's decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee." He added that today's move "signals the death knell for the Kerry-Boxer bill."
But Boxer said EPA will do another analysis before a bill goes to the floor, and that it was time to move on.
"I'm very relieved that we did it, and it's unfortunate we had to go the route we did, but the Senate can't be paralyzed. The Senate has to function," Boxer said. "That's why the rules are in place, so the majority can move forward."
Boxer spoke with Kerry and Majority Leader Reid after the vote and told reporters the two were "excited that we moved the process along."
Boxer Pushes Through Climate Bill Despite GOP Boycott
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Nov. 5, 2009, 9:47 a.m.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Thursday pushed climate change legislation through her committee on an 11-1 vote despite a boycott of the markup by panel Republicans. The lone no vote for her bill was from Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Baucus, citing his concerns with the bill’s effects on agriculture and other issues, said he had hoped to make changes to the bill during the EPW markup. “Unfortunately, these concerns have not been resolved, so I am not able to vote for this legislation,” Baucus said.
Ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who appeared at the start of the markup but left before voting began, decried the “nuclear option” of moving ahead without GOP participation. “We have not been able to find a time when a bill was marked up without minority participation” in the past, he said before reiterating his objection to continuing the markup. Republicans wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to provide a full analysis of the bill’s effects before considering it.
Because the committee’s rules require two members of the GOP to participate in votes to amend a bill — but not to report a bill out of committee — Boxer was forced to move the bill without any changes.
“It is regrettable that we could not move forward in a more constructive way to better reflect the will of this committee,” Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said as he backed Boxer’s decision.
While Democrats sought to lay the blame for the collapse of the committee process on Republicans, they were clearly frustrated even as they voted to report out the bill. “I’m doing this because I think we need a beginning,” Sen. Amy Klobachar (D-Minn.) said.
“This is a little disappointing,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “Because our Republican colleagues have boycotted this process, each of us forgo” the legislative process.
Republicans “put us in an impossible position by simply not showing up for work,” Whitehouse added.
Following the vote, Baucus said that he would continue to work on his own version of the bill and that he still hopes to move a bill out of the Finance Committee this year.
CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Nov. 5, 2009 – 2:00 p.m.
Climate Bill Out of Committee, But at What Cost?
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer , D-Calif., resorted to a strong-arm procedural maneuver Thursday to push global warming legislation through her committee, alienating Republicans and frustrating some moderate Democrats.
The panel’s ranking Republican, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, branded Boxer’s decision to approve the bill without Republican participation a “nuclear option.” Republicans have been boycotting the markup, calling for further EPA analysis of the bill’s cost.
“This is not a procedure we wanted,” Boxer told the panel’s Democrats, acknowledging that it may complicate efforts to pass climate legislation in the Senate. “It’s a procedure that was available to us. It was available to our predecessors. That was why they wrote it. We need to move. The Senate should not come to a standstill.”
Committee rules require at least two members of the minority to be present for votes on amendments and to approve legislation. After Republicans made it clear that they would stay away from the markup indefinitely, Boxer used a broad interpretation of the rules that allow the committee to report legislation out with a simple majority vote on the bill — but no votes on amendments.
Democrats did not dispute Republican claims that it was unprecedented for a chairman of the Environment panel to proceed with a markup without minority participation.
“This was an extraordinary experience, and in many ways a bonding experience,” said Boxer, a California Democrat. But even fellow Democrats on the panel were uncomfortable with the breakdown of bipartisan cooperation.
“I don’t like this process and I don’t think any of us do,” said Thomas R. Carper , D-Del., who has worked for months with coal-state senators to develop provisions and amendments that could attract their votes.
One committee Democrat, former chairman Max Baucus of Montana, voted against the measure. Baucus supports action to address global warming, but he had filed more than 20 amendments and said he could not support the underlying bill without amendment.
The bill would restrict emissions of gases that contribute to global warming, require polluters to hold government-issued emissions allowances and establish a market for trading those credits.
NATIONAL JOURNAL - Thursday, November 5, 2009
Carper Sees Limited Progress Pre-Copenhagen By Margaret Kriz Hobson
In April, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer asked Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., to head up a working group to address some of the coal industry's concerns on climate change legislation. Carper worked with eight other senators, including six from coal states, to hammer out a plan that would encourage coal-based utilities to develop and install technology to capture power plant greenhouse gas emissions and sequester them underground. Much of the compromise language drafted by the team was included in the climate change bill now being considered by the Senate Environment Committee.
But the coal group was less successful in reaching agreement on several other key coal-related provisions, including whether the legislation should prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. That and other contentious coal-related issues are destined to be debated during the ongoing Senate climate change debate.
National Journal reporter Margaret Kriz Hobson spoke with Sen. Carper on Oct. 23 about the coal negotiations.
NJ: How did a Delaware senator get to lead the Senate coal working group?
Carper: We're a low-lying state. We have strong concerns about clean air. We're at the end of a massive tailpipe. All the bad stuff that's put up in the air, particularly in the Midwest, just blows over to our part of the country. If the worst turns out to be true, we're going to see sea-level rise. But coal will continue to play big role in energy production. So we've essentially said, "How can we preserve a role for coal knowing that we're going to need it as we tap the potential of solar and wind and other renewable forms of energy? While we stand up for additional nuclear power plants, how can we continue to use coal but do so in a way that doesn't threaten the health of our planet?"
NJ: Your group came up with some proposals to encourage the development of technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. Why have you focused on that issue?
Carper: Utilities like certainty. They wanted to be sure that if they make investments in carbon capture and storage, that we would provide incentives up front for making the huge investments that are needed. So to do that, we want to award [free] allowances [under the proposed cap-and-trade program], and provide bonus payments. We focused a lot on that. That was maybe the most difficult thing we did.
NJ: Are you negotiating on other coal-related issues? Are you considering whether the climate change bill should pre-empt the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases?
Carper: We had a discussion on that. I suspect there will be an amendment offered on that point. But our chair [Boxer] would prefer the bill we report out of committee leave the Clean Air Act essentially intact. The expectation is that on the floor there may be some attempt to change that.
NJ: Can Congress complete global warming legislation before the December United Nations negotiations on climate change in Copenhagen?
Carper: I think it's highly unlikely that we'll have a bill for the president to sign before Copenhagen. My own sense is that we need to show real progress, and my hope is that we will be in a position to do that.
They convene in Copenhagen on the 7th or 8th [of December]. I'm told by John Kerry that some of the more important sessions don't occur until almost a week later. The timeline that we're investing in health care continues to stretch out. I think it's important for us not to rush that.
I think we'll be in a position to move a bill out of the [environment] committee -- a good bill -- before Copenhagen. My hope is that before Copenhagen is over, we'll have been able to not only report a bill out of committee -- the other relevant committees will have reported their bills, Senator [Harry] Reid will have had a chance to merge the bills into one and begun or scheduled floor time in December to debate the package and to begin to amend it.
At the very least, when the folks are gathered at Copenhagen, I want them to know that all the relevant committees in the Senate have completed their work and an effort has begun to merge the bills into one.
But the coal group was less successful in reaching agreement on several other key coal-related provisions, including whether the legislation should prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. That and other contentious coal-related issues are destined to be debated during the ongoing Senate climate change debate.
National Journal reporter Margaret Kriz Hobson spoke with Sen. Carper on Oct. 23 about the coal negotiations.
NJ: How did a Delaware senator get to lead the Senate coal working group?
Carper: We're a low-lying state. We have strong concerns about clean air. We're at the end of a massive tailpipe. All the bad stuff that's put up in the air, particularly in the Midwest, just blows over to our part of the country. If the worst turns out to be true, we're going to see sea-level rise. But coal will continue to play big role in energy production. So we've essentially said, "How can we preserve a role for coal knowing that we're going to need it as we tap the potential of solar and wind and other renewable forms of energy? While we stand up for additional nuclear power plants, how can we continue to use coal but do so in a way that doesn't threaten the health of our planet?"
NJ: Your group came up with some proposals to encourage the development of technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. Why have you focused on that issue?
Carper: Utilities like certainty. They wanted to be sure that if they make investments in carbon capture and storage, that we would provide incentives up front for making the huge investments that are needed. So to do that, we want to award [free] allowances [under the proposed cap-and-trade program], and provide bonus payments. We focused a lot on that. That was maybe the most difficult thing we did.
NJ: Are you negotiating on other coal-related issues? Are you considering whether the climate change bill should pre-empt the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases?
Carper: We had a discussion on that. I suspect there will be an amendment offered on that point. But our chair [Boxer] would prefer the bill we report out of committee leave the Clean Air Act essentially intact. The expectation is that on the floor there may be some attempt to change that.
NJ: Can Congress complete global warming legislation before the December United Nations negotiations on climate change in Copenhagen?
Carper: I think it's highly unlikely that we'll have a bill for the president to sign before Copenhagen. My own sense is that we need to show real progress, and my hope is that we will be in a position to do that.
They convene in Copenhagen on the 7th or 8th [of December]. I'm told by John Kerry that some of the more important sessions don't occur until almost a week later. The timeline that we're investing in health care continues to stretch out. I think it's important for us not to rush that.
I think we'll be in a position to move a bill out of the [environment] committee -- a good bill -- before Copenhagen. My hope is that before Copenhagen is over, we'll have been able to not only report a bill out of committee -- the other relevant committees will have reported their bills, Senator [Harry] Reid will have had a chance to merge the bills into one and begun or scheduled floor time in December to debate the package and to begin to amend it.
At the very least, when the folks are gathered at Copenhagen, I want them to know that all the relevant committees in the Senate have completed their work and an effort has begun to merge the bills into one.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Carbon Caps Task Force to meet at 1:30 p.m. Sunday November 8 at 3274 Lee Avenue behind shopping center and Liquor World in Fayetteville Arkansas
Friday, November 6, 2009
Carbon Caps Task Force to meet at 1:30 p.m. Sunday November 8 at 3274 Lee Avenue in Fayetteville Arkansas
Asking Ourselves: What’s My Role in the CCTF?
Objectives:
1. Define and discuss expansion of the CCTF mission.
2. Ensure members are up to date on CCTF tasks and gain their input and commitment.
3. Introduce Joanna as the CCTF Facilitator
Attendees:
Will be filled in as Joanna is notified and sent out with reminder
e-mail one day before the meeting.
Date, Time and Duration:
Sunday 11/8/09 from 1-2:30pm
At The New Omni House on 3274 Lee Avenue
Items:
• Introductions and any announcements members have…(3 minutes)
• CCTF Mission: Raising Climate Change Consciousness- Education and Beyond…Joanna Pollock (8 minutes).
• Art with Social Purpose, Speaking to Copenhagen…Adam Campbell (10 minutes or less) (A 1sky collaboration)
• Reaching out to Farmers and the American Farm Bureau Hypocrisy…Joanna Pollock (5 minutes or less) (A 1sky collaboration)
• Addressing Anti-Climate Change Legislation Propaganda…Dick Bennett (10 minutes or less)
• Population and Climate Change Book Forum…Joanna Pollock (10 minutes or less).
• Climate Scientist and CAT-TV Forum…Dick Bennett (3 minutes)
• Talking to Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor…Art Hobson.
• Coal Coalition…Joanna Pollock (3 minutes) (A Clean Air Arkansas Collaboration)
• Future Plans and New Ideas…Open to All (10 minutes).
Objectives:
1. Define and discuss expansion of the CCTF mission.
2. Ensure members are up to date on CCTF tasks and gain their input and commitment.
3. Introduce Joanna as the CCTF Facilitator
Attendees:
Will be filled in as Joanna is notified and sent out with reminder
e-mail one day before the meeting.
Date, Time and Duration:
Sunday 11/8/09 from 1-2:30pm
At The New Omni House on 3274 Lee Avenue
Items:
• Introductions and any announcements members have…(3 minutes)
• CCTF Mission: Raising Climate Change Consciousness- Education and Beyond…Joanna Pollock (8 minutes).
• Art with Social Purpose, Speaking to Copenhagen…Adam Campbell (10 minutes or less) (A 1sky collaboration)
• Reaching out to Farmers and the American Farm Bureau Hypocrisy…Joanna Pollock (5 minutes or less) (A 1sky collaboration)
• Addressing Anti-Climate Change Legislation Propaganda…Dick Bennett (10 minutes or less)
• Population and Climate Change Book Forum…Joanna Pollock (10 minutes or less).
• Climate Scientist and CAT-TV Forum…Dick Bennett (3 minutes)
• Talking to Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor…Art Hobson.
• Coal Coalition…Joanna Pollock (3 minutes) (A Clean Air Arkansas Collaboration)
• Future Plans and New Ideas…Open to All (10 minutes).
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Claire Detels' performance of samples of music of some of the Great African American composers Friday night brought support to OMNI Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology
Please click on image to move to Flickr site and ENLARGE view of Claire Detels on October 20, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Claire Detels performs music of Great African American composers tonight; donations support OMNI Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology
Hi OMNI folks and friends...
Tonight only! Pianist and musicologist Prof. Claire Detels performs the music of Great African American composers on Adella Gray's lovely piano. The program is attached. Please join us.
Great African American Composers
Home of Gary and Adella Gray
1681 N. Starr Drive
6:30 social hour, 7:00 performance
Directions: Take Mission Blvd. to N. Starr, turn right
$10 donation accepted to benefit OMNI Center. Please join us.
Gladys Tiffany
OMNI Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
www.omnicenter.org
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Tonight only! Pianist and musicologist Prof. Claire Detels performs the music of Great African American composers on Adella Gray's lovely piano. The program is attached. Please join us.
Great African American Composers
Home of Gary and Adella Gray
1681 N. Starr Drive
6:30 social hour, 7:00 performance
Directions: Take Mission Blvd. to N. Starr, turn right
$10 donation accepted to benefit OMNI Center. Please join us.
Gladys Tiffany
OMNI Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
www.omnicenter.org
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Fayetteville Climate Change Action begins at 2 p.m. at Dickson Street and Campbell Avenue next to Bordinos
Fayetteville Climate Change Action begins at 2 p.m. at Dickson Street and Campbell Avenue next to Bordinos.
March and Rally - Fayetteville will join with over 4,000 others world-wide. We hope you will come to learn more about Climate Change and show solidarity. Join with fellow citizens of NW Arkansas at 2:00pm at Dickson and Campbell Streets (next to Bordinos)...the march will begin there and head to the Square. There will be speakers, music and information on how we can make a difference affecting the December treaty in Copenhagen. This is the most pressing universal issue that concerns us all...It's a chance for all of us to Stand up for Action on Climate Change. The event is sponsored by 350.org and 1 SKY. For more information call 530-7786.
A one day screening of The AGE OF STUPID in Fayetteville at the UA Union Theater from 6-9 pm on October 24th.
All of the community is encouraged to attend this FREE screening! Parking free in Union Parking Lot.
After the International Climate Day of Action (2:00 pm beginning on Dickson by Bordinos)
March and Rally - Fayetteville will join with over 4,000 others world-wide. We hope you will come to learn more about Climate Change and show solidarity. Join with fellow citizens of NW Arkansas at 2:00pm at Dickson and Campbell Streets (next to Bordinos)...the march will begin there and head to the Square. There will be speakers, music and information on how we can make a difference affecting the December treaty in Copenhagen. This is the most pressing universal issue that concerns us all...It's a chance for all of us to Stand up for Action on Climate Change. The event is sponsored by 350.org and 1 SKY. For more information call 530-7786.
A one day screening of The AGE OF STUPID in Fayetteville at the UA Union Theater from 6-9 pm on October 24th.
All of the community is encouraged to attend this FREE screening! Parking free in Union Parking Lot.
After the International Climate Day of Action (2:00 pm beginning on Dickson by Bordinos)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday night book forum on climate breakdown in Greenland, Arkansas
FORUM ON CLIMATE BREAKDOWN
The OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology and its Climate Change Task Force will present a Book Forum on Climate Breakdown at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, October 23, at the Greenland Community Center.
Panelists will discuss the latest science-based scholarship explaining how the climate is collapsing with accelerating speed because of the rapid increase of human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere. The consensus of scientists know that by 2050 the atmosphere must be restored to 350 PPM (parts per million) of CO2 if our civilization is to survive even in a reduced condition. Panelists are Steve Boss, Ryan Bancroft, Jonathan Gibbs, and Joanna Pollock. Moderator: Carl Barnwell.
The Forum offers two firsts:
This is the first public presentation in Arkansas of the best books on climate change. All express the scientific consensus that 350 PPM of atmospheric C02 must be the goal, and it must be achieved quickly. And it is the first Forum by OMNI presented in a town other than Fayetteville, Springdale, and Rogers. OMNI and its Climate Change Task Force, with its climate educational programs, are reaching out to NWA beyond its major cities and colleges..
Books to be discussed are: Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future; David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 years of Earth's Climate; Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet; James Speth, Bridge to the End of the World. (Additional excellent books among the many: Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: The Global Warming Solution; Larry Schweiger, Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth; James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia A Final Warning .
Directions to the Greenland Community Center
South on 71: At Greenland stoplight turn right onto Wilson, cross railroad tracks, keep on Wilson to “Y”, turn right onto Leticia, go 2 blocks to Center.
South on 540: At Greenland Exit, go east on Wilson to “Y”, turn left onto Leticia, Center will be on right.
--
Dick Bennett
jbennet@uark.edu
The OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology and its Climate Change Task Force will present a Book Forum on Climate Breakdown at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, October 23, at the Greenland Community Center.
Panelists will discuss the latest science-based scholarship explaining how the climate is collapsing with accelerating speed because of the rapid increase of human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere. The consensus of scientists know that by 2050 the atmosphere must be restored to 350 PPM (parts per million) of CO2 if our civilization is to survive even in a reduced condition. Panelists are Steve Boss, Ryan Bancroft, Jonathan Gibbs, and Joanna Pollock. Moderator: Carl Barnwell.
The Forum offers two firsts:
This is the first public presentation in Arkansas of the best books on climate change. All express the scientific consensus that 350 PPM of atmospheric C02 must be the goal, and it must be achieved quickly. And it is the first Forum by OMNI presented in a town other than Fayetteville, Springdale, and Rogers. OMNI and its Climate Change Task Force, with its climate educational programs, are reaching out to NWA beyond its major cities and colleges..
Books to be discussed are: Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future; David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 years of Earth's Climate; Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet; James Speth, Bridge to the End of the World. (Additional excellent books among the many: Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: The Global Warming Solution; Larry Schweiger, Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth; James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia A Final Warning .
Directions to the Greenland Community Center
South on 71: At Greenland stoplight turn right onto Wilson, cross railroad tracks, keep on Wilson to “Y”, turn right onto Leticia, go 2 blocks to Center.
South on 540: At Greenland Exit, go east on Wilson to “Y”, turn left onto Leticia, Center will be on right.
--
Dick Bennett
jbennet@uark.edu
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Green Groups Guild meeting Thursday
From: Green Groups Guild (ggg@listserv.uark.edu) on behalf of ggg (ggg@UARK.EDU)
Sent: Tue 10/13/09 2:31 PM
To: GGG@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Meeting 10/15/09 7:00 p.m.
209 Thompson Ave. Three Sisters Bldg on Dickson above Fez Hookah Lounge.
Patrick Kunnecke
GGG President
ASLA Vice President
4th Year Landscape Architecture Student
479-544-1906
Sent: Tue 10/13/09 2:31 PM
To: GGG@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Meeting 10/15/09 7:00 p.m.
209 Thompson Ave. Three Sisters Bldg on Dickson above Fez Hookah Lounge.
Patrick Kunnecke
GGG President
ASLA Vice President
4th Year Landscape Architecture Student
479-544-1906
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Runners and Sponsors sought for Nov. 7, 2009, 5K veterans' memorial race to benefit Fayetteville National Cemetery
Please click on image to move to Flickr site and ENLARGE for easy reading. The Regional National Cemetery Improvement Corporation meets at 10:30 a.m. Saturday October 10 and needs to add sponsor names to the file for the race T shirts and the brochures so that printing can begin. Already, Tyson Foods has donated at the Medal of Honor level and has challenged others to join them at the top of the list, thanks to the effort of RNCIC Secretary Peggy McClain.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
New York City gets wake-up call on global climate change
"WE'RE SCREWED": MEDIA HEIST BLANKETS CITY WITH "SPECIAL EDITION" NEW YORK POST
Tabloid Tells Truth About Climate Change and How It Will Affect City, World
Contact: The Yes Men, 347-254-7054, 646-220-4137
Fake New York Post: http://www.nypost-se.com/
Video News Release: http://www.nypost-se.com/video
City report on climate change: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf
Wake-up call: http://www.tcktcktck.org/wakeup
Early this morning, nearly a million New Yorkers were stunned by the appearance of
a "special edition" New York Post blaring headlines that their city could face
deadly heat waves, extreme flooding, and other lethal effects of global warming
within the next few decades. The most alarming thing about it: the news came from
an official City report.
Distributed by over 2000 volunteers throughout New York City, the paper has been
created by The Yes Men and a coalition of activists as a wake-up call to action on
climate change. It appears one day before a UN summit where Secretary-General Ban
Ki-Moon will push 100 world leaders to make serious commitments to reduce carbon
emissions in the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate conference in December. Ban has
said that the world has "less than 10 years to halt (the) global rise in
greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences for people
and the planet," adding that Copenhagen is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity."
Although the 32-page New York Post is a fake, everything in it is 100% true, with
all facts carefully checked by a team of editors and climate change experts.
"This could be, and should be, a real New York Post," said Andy Bichlbaum of the
Yes Men. "Climate change is the biggest threat civilization has ever faced, and it
should be in the headlines of every paper, every day until we solve the problem."
The fake Post's cover story ("We're Screwed") reports the frightening conclusions
of a blue-ribbon panel of scientists commissioned by the mayor's office to
determine the potential effects of climate change on the City. That report was
released in February of this year, but received very little press at the time.
Other lead articles describe the Pentagon's alarmed response to global warming
("Clear & Present Disaster"), the U.S. government's sadly minuscule response to
the crisis ("Congress Cops Out on Climate"), China's alternative energy program
("ChinaÕs Green Leap Forward Overtakes U.S."), and how if the US doesn't quickly
pass a strong climate bill, the crucial Copenhagen climate talks this December
could be a "Flopenhagen."
The paper includes original investigative reporting as well. One article ("Carbon
counter counts New Yorkers as fools") reveals that Deutsche Bank - which erected a
seven-story "carbon counter" in central Manhattan - not only invests heavily in
coal-mining companies worldwide, but has recently entered the business of coal
trading itself.
The paper has the world's gloomiest weather page, covering the next 70 years
rather than just 7 days. The "Around the World" section describes the
disproportionate effects of climate change on poorer parts of the world, including
extreme droughts, floods, famines, water shortages, mass migrations and conflicts.
Developing countries will bear the brunt of climate change effects even though
they have done very little to cause the problem.
But the paper isn't all doom and gloom. An article called "New York Fights Back"
notes that the carbon emissions of Big Apple residents are only one third the
national average, and that the city is building 1800 miles of bike paths, planting
one million trees, and replacing its fleet of police cars with hybrids. There's
also a page of black-humor cartoons (in one, Charlie Brown finds Snoopy drowned),
a gossip section that takes no prisoners, and a number of truly cheerful ads - for
sex ("Awesome. No carbon emissions."), tote bags, bicycles, and tap water
("Literally comes right out of your faucet!").
Another ad promotes civil disobedience, encouraging readers to visit
http://BeyondTalk.net and pledge to risk arrest in a planned global action
November 30, just before the conference in Copenhagen.
"We need strong action on climate change," said David Solnit of Mobilization for
Climate Justice West, one of the partners in BeyondTalk.net. "But history shows
that leaders act only when people take to the streets to demand it. That's what
needs to happen now."
This paper is one of 2500 initiatives taking place in more than 130 countries as a
response to the "Global Wake-up Call" on climate change. For more information,
visit www.tcktcktck.org/wakeup
--
Dick Bennett
Tabloid Tells Truth About Climate Change and How It Will Affect City, World
Contact: The Yes Men
Fake New York Post: http://www.nypost-se.com/
Video News Release: http://www.nypost-se.com/video
City report on climate change: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf
Wake-up call: http://www.tcktcktck.org/wakeup
Early this morning, nearly a million New Yorkers were stunned by the appearance of
a "special edition" New York Post blaring headlines that their city could face
deadly heat waves, extreme flooding, and other lethal effects of global warming
within the next few decades. The most alarming thing about it: the news came from
an official City report.
Distributed by over 2000 volunteers throughout New York City, the paper has been
created by The Yes Men and a coalition of activists as a wake-up call to action on
climate change. It appears one day before a UN summit where Secretary-General Ban
Ki-Moon will push 100 world leaders to make serious commitments to reduce carbon
emissions in the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate conference in December. Ban has
said that the world has "less than 10 years to halt (the) global rise in
greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences for people
and the planet," adding that Copenhagen is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity."
Although the 32-page New York Post is a fake, everything in it is 100% true, with
all facts carefully checked by a team of editors and climate change experts.
"This could be, and should be, a real New York Post," said Andy Bichlbaum of the
Yes Men. "Climate change is the biggest threat civilization has ever faced, and it
should be in the headlines of every paper, every day until we solve the problem."
The fake Post's cover story ("We're Screwed") reports the frightening conclusions
of a blue-ribbon panel of scientists commissioned by the mayor's office to
determine the potential effects of climate change on the City. That report was
released in February of this year, but received very little press at the time.
Other lead articles describe the Pentagon's alarmed response to global warming
("Clear & Present Disaster"), the U.S. government's sadly minuscule response to
the crisis ("Congress Cops Out on Climate"), China's alternative energy program
("ChinaÕs Green Leap Forward Overtakes U.S."), and how if the US doesn't quickly
pass a strong climate bill, the crucial Copenhagen climate talks this December
could be a "Flopenhagen."
The paper includes original investigative reporting as well. One article ("Carbon
counter counts New Yorkers as fools") reveals that Deutsche Bank - which erected a
seven-story "carbon counter" in central Manhattan - not only invests heavily in
coal-mining companies worldwide, but has recently entered the business of coal
trading itself.
The paper has the world's gloomiest weather page, covering the next 70 years
rather than just 7 days. The "Around the World" section describes the
disproportionate effects of climate change on poorer parts of the world, including
extreme droughts, floods, famines, water shortages, mass migrations and conflicts.
Developing countries will bear the brunt of climate change effects even though
they have done very little to cause the problem.
But the paper isn't all doom and gloom. An article called "New York Fights Back"
notes that the carbon emissions of Big Apple residents are only one third the
national average, and that the city is building 1800 miles of bike paths, planting
one million trees, and replacing its fleet of police cars with hybrids. There's
also a page of black-humor cartoons (in one, Charlie Brown finds Snoopy drowned),
a gossip section that takes no prisoners, and a number of truly cheerful ads - for
sex ("Awesome. No carbon emissions."), tote bags, bicycles, and tap water
("Literally comes right out of your faucet!").
Another ad promotes civil disobedience, encouraging readers to visit
http://BeyondTalk.net and pledge to risk arrest in a planned global action
November 30, just before the conference in Copenhagen.
"We need strong action on climate change," said David Solnit of Mobilization for
Climate Justice West, one of the partners in BeyondTalk.net. "But history shows
that leaders act only when people take to the streets to demand it. That's what
needs to happen now."
This paper is one of 2500 initiatives taking place in more than 130 countries as a
response to the "Global Wake-up Call" on climate change. For more information,
visit www.tcktcktck.org/wakeup
--
Dick Bennett
Saturday, September 19, 2009
OMNI Climate-breakdown book forum a success at 6 p.m. today at Nightbird bookstore on Dickson Street
Please click on image to go to Flickr and use tools to ENLARGE view from OMNI forum on global climate change on September 18, 2009.
For more recent photos, please visit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7295307@N02
For more recent photos, please visit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7295307@N02
Friday, September 18, 2009
CCTF Agenda, September 20th, 2009
Meeting commences @ 1:30 PM.
• Welcome! (5 min.)
• What have we accomplished, and what will we accomplish? The list! (10 min.)
• Discuss 1sky official partnership (Ryan Denham) (10 min.)
• Idea pitch: alternative to cap-and-trade, establishing a new “middle ground” (David Orr) (10 min.)
• Future projects (20 min.)
o Repeat climate-concern book forum (NWACC, Greenland, West Fork, beyond! Maybe)
o 2nd hands-on action committee, extension of CCTF? (Jon Gibbs)
• Actions that grow from this?
o CCTF purchase billboard? (Dick) Suggestions:
• “Is this trip really necessary? Stop CO2!”
• “350 PPM”
• Your idea?
o Others?
• Personal actions (5 min.)
o Visit www.350.org/Sept21 and join the global call to action! Or Age of Stupid viewing. Would anyone like to organize a viewing party or call bank?
o More?
• Closing (5 min.)
Estimated Running Time (ERT), 70 minutes, ending @ ~2:40 PM.
Meeting commences @ 1:30 PM.
• Welcome! (5 min.)
• What have we accomplished, and what will we accomplish? The list! (10 min.)
• Discuss 1sky official partnership (Ryan Denham) (10 min.)
• Idea pitch: alternative to cap-and-trade, establishing a new “middle ground” (David Orr) (10 min.)
• Future projects (20 min.)
o Repeat climate-concern book forum (NWACC, Greenland, West Fork, beyond! Maybe)
o 2nd hands-on action committee, extension of CCTF? (Jon Gibbs)
• Actions that grow from this?
o CCTF purchase billboard? (Dick) Suggestions:
• “Is this trip really necessary? Stop CO2!”
• “350 PPM”
• Your idea?
o Others?
• Personal actions (5 min.)
o Visit www.350.org/Sept21 and join the global call to action! Or Age of Stupid viewing. Would anyone like to organize a viewing party or call bank?
o More?
• Closing (5 min.)
Estimated Running Time (ERT), 70 minutes, ending @ ~2:40 PM.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
League of Women voters sponsoring discussion of Arkansas' electric future on September 23, 2009
Concerned about a proposed SWEPCO rate increase and developing energy efficiency?
A panel of experts will discuss the electrical power dilemma facing
Arkansas and ratepayers during a public information program
moderated by Hoyt Purvis, University of Arkansas Journalism Department.
Wed., Sept. 23, 2009, from 6:00 to 8:00 at the Fayetteville Public Library
This is also a special LWVWC membership invitation event. Come early, 5:30 to 6:00, for refreshments and visit the membership table before the program for more information.
Topic:
Arkansas finds itself with a need to expand electrical production at the same time it has overcapacity. A controversial coal-fired generating plant, choice of what fuels should be used in the future, an urgency to upgrade transmission, serious environmental concerns and ratepayer costs combine for a perfect “electrical” storm. Learning what Arkansas is facing and what that means to ratepayers is the focus for this League of Women Voters of Washington County’s public program.
Panel Participants:
Sandra Byrd, VP, Strategic Affairs, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation and former chair of the Arkansas Public Service Commission
Nicholas Brown, President and CEO of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Ken Smith, Executive Director of Audubon Arkansas, an organization involved in the lawsuit over the J.W.Turk, Jr. coal-fired plant
Eddie Moore, an attorney working with Audubon on electric efficiency and ratepayers issues and representing the Arkansas Public Policy Panel on energy issues during the 2009 legislative session
A panel of experts will discuss the electrical power dilemma facing
Arkansas and ratepayers during a public information program
moderated by Hoyt Purvis, University of Arkansas Journalism Department.
Wed., Sept. 23, 2009, from 6:00 to 8:00 at the Fayetteville Public Library
This is also a special LWVWC membership invitation event. Come early, 5:30 to 6:00, for refreshments and visit the membership table before the program for more information.
Topic:
Arkansas finds itself with a need to expand electrical production at the same time it has overcapacity. A controversial coal-fired generating plant, choice of what fuels should be used in the future, an urgency to upgrade transmission, serious environmental concerns and ratepayer costs combine for a perfect “electrical” storm. Learning what Arkansas is facing and what that means to ratepayers is the focus for this League of Women Voters of Washington County’s public program.
Panel Participants:
Sandra Byrd, VP, Strategic Affairs, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation and former chair of the Arkansas Public Service Commission
Nicholas Brown, President and CEO of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Ken Smith, Executive Director of Audubon Arkansas, an organization involved in the lawsuit over the J.W.Turk, Jr. coal-fired plant
Eddie Moore, an attorney working with Audubon on electric efficiency and ratepayers issues and representing the Arkansas Public Policy Panel on energy issues during the 2009 legislative session
Friday, September 4, 2009
Fall color fades in western United States as aspen trees die
Fall colors fade in U.S. west as aspen trees die
By Laura Zuckerman
52 mins ago
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – The American West is losing its autumn colors as global warming begins to bite and there is far more at stake than iconic scenery.
Aspen, the white-barked trees with golden leaves that gave their name to the famed Colorado ski resort, have been dying off across the Rocky Mountain states. The die-off is puzzling but some foresters point to climate change.
This disaster coincides with beetle outbreaks that have laid waste to millions of acres of pine and spruce forest in the American and Canadian west. They too have been linked to warmer winters since extremely cold temperatures are needed to kill the insects.
Recent droughts and other factors linked to global warming are seen as likely causes for "sudden aspen decline," or SAD, so named because it can strike a forest so quickly.
"Assuming climate predictions are true, it probably is a sign of things to come," said Jim Worrall, forest pathologist with the U.S. Forest Service.
Dwindling aspen would spell trouble for mountain towns like Aspen, Colorado, where tourists flock each autumn to see their spade-shaped leaves turn from green to gold before skiers arrive for the winter.
Failing aspen forests also hurt sawmills and threaten large animals such as elk seeking food with consequences for hunting and other outdoor industries.
The effects have yet to hit home in a city that trades on its scenic beauty, but officials are braced for the worst.
"A large die-off could be devastating," said Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland.
Colorado acreage ravaged by SAD quadrupled from 2006 to 2008 to more than 850 square miles (2,200 square km). The syndrome has also struck in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, where researchers suggest a warmer, dryer West may all but eliminate aspen from the Rocky Mountains by the end of the century.
Stands afflicted by SAD lose leaves, are assaulted by insects and frequently fail to reproduce.
Delta Timber Co. in southwest Colorado, where SAD is at its height, depends almost entirely on aspen to produce paneling for walls and ceilings.
"We're struggling right now with the same thing all sawmills are facing because of the housing crunch," said owner Eric Sorenson. "Now with the trees dying, it's going to create more challenges."
NOTHING TO BE DONE?
Dale Bartos, aspen ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Logan, Utah, is cautious about using climate-based forecasts to predict an end to aspen.
"I see aspen moving up and down the hillsides with climate change," he said. "As it dries out, we may see aspen on the lower end move up the hill. I don't think the answer is cut and dried."
Others foresee a grim outlook for a tree whose image has long been associated with the outdoors appeal of the West.
"What we think will happen is that aspen will disappear in some areas and there will not be anything we can do about it," said SAD expert Wayne Shepperd of Colorado State University.
A study by scientists with the federal Rocky Mountain Research Station in Moscow, Idaho presented just such a scenario. It predicted the near total disappearance of aspen in the Rocky Mountain region by 2090.
The research, to be published in Forest Ecology and Management, links ailing aspen to global climate change and concludes that up to 41 percent of Western forests would be unable to support aspen by 2030. That figure would rise to 75 percent by 2060 and as much as 94 percent in 2090.
Study co-author Gerald Rehfeldt said a combination of less rain and snow, the timing of precipitation and warmer summers would outstrip the tree's ability to colonize new areas.
Future forests may show an increase in evergreen seedlings as they encroach on areas once occupied by aspen. But aspen in other areas may also replace dying spruce and pine.
"Things are happening pretty quickly and that's what's scary," said Forest Service plant pathologist John Guyon.
(Editing by Alan Elsner and Peter Henderson)
By Laura Zuckerman
52 mins ago
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – The American West is losing its autumn colors as global warming begins to bite and there is far more at stake than iconic scenery.
Aspen, the white-barked trees with golden leaves that gave their name to the famed Colorado ski resort, have been dying off across the Rocky Mountain states. The die-off is puzzling but some foresters point to climate change.
This disaster coincides with beetle outbreaks that have laid waste to millions of acres of pine and spruce forest in the American and Canadian west. They too have been linked to warmer winters since extremely cold temperatures are needed to kill the insects.
Recent droughts and other factors linked to global warming are seen as likely causes for "sudden aspen decline," or SAD, so named because it can strike a forest so quickly.
"Assuming climate predictions are true, it probably is a sign of things to come," said Jim Worrall, forest pathologist with the U.S. Forest Service.
Dwindling aspen would spell trouble for mountain towns like Aspen, Colorado, where tourists flock each autumn to see their spade-shaped leaves turn from green to gold before skiers arrive for the winter.
Failing aspen forests also hurt sawmills and threaten large animals such as elk seeking food with consequences for hunting and other outdoor industries.
The effects have yet to hit home in a city that trades on its scenic beauty, but officials are braced for the worst.
"A large die-off could be devastating," said Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland.
Colorado acreage ravaged by SAD quadrupled from 2006 to 2008 to more than 850 square miles (2,200 square km). The syndrome has also struck in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, where researchers suggest a warmer, dryer West may all but eliminate aspen from the Rocky Mountains by the end of the century.
Stands afflicted by SAD lose leaves, are assaulted by insects and frequently fail to reproduce.
Delta Timber Co. in southwest Colorado, where SAD is at its height, depends almost entirely on aspen to produce paneling for walls and ceilings.
"We're struggling right now with the same thing all sawmills are facing because of the housing crunch," said owner Eric Sorenson. "Now with the trees dying, it's going to create more challenges."
NOTHING TO BE DONE?
Dale Bartos, aspen ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Logan, Utah, is cautious about using climate-based forecasts to predict an end to aspen.
"I see aspen moving up and down the hillsides with climate change," he said. "As it dries out, we may see aspen on the lower end move up the hill. I don't think the answer is cut and dried."
Others foresee a grim outlook for a tree whose image has long been associated with the outdoors appeal of the West.
"What we think will happen is that aspen will disappear in some areas and there will not be anything we can do about it," said SAD expert Wayne Shepperd of Colorado State University.
A study by scientists with the federal Rocky Mountain Research Station in Moscow, Idaho presented just such a scenario. It predicted the near total disappearance of aspen in the Rocky Mountain region by 2090.
The research, to be published in Forest Ecology and Management, links ailing aspen to global climate change and concludes that up to 41 percent of Western forests would be unable to support aspen by 2030. That figure would rise to 75 percent by 2060 and as much as 94 percent in 2090.
Study co-author Gerald Rehfeldt said a combination of less rain and snow, the timing of precipitation and warmer summers would outstrip the tree's ability to colonize new areas.
Future forests may show an increase in evergreen seedlings as they encroach on areas once occupied by aspen. But aspen in other areas may also replace dying spruce and pine.
"Things are happening pretty quickly and that's what's scary," said Forest Service plant pathologist John Guyon.
(Editing by Alan Elsner and Peter Henderson)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
OMNI book panel on the denial of global warming's reality September 18
Our Forum is almost complete, and I am sending this PR to KUAF soon. Let me know if you see anything needing correction. Videographer needed. Leonard and Aaron OK?
At end a letter from Sierra that emphasizes the importance of our Forum.
THANK YOU ALL, Dick
AUGUST 2009
CLIMATE BREAKDOWN BOOK FORUM
Sponsored by OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, and ECOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 18, FRIDAY, 6PM, NIGHTBIRD.
FOUR PANELISTS
Ryan Bancroft: Chris Mooney, Unscientific America
Jonathan Gibbs: Mark Lynas, Six Degrees
Steve Boss: David Archer, The Long Thaw
Joanna Pollock: Larry Schweiger, Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth.
DESCRIPTION
This OMNI Book Forum discusses the latest science-based scholarship explaining how the climate is breaking down with accelerating speed. Imagine inland United States average temperature a few degrees hotter within a few decades, with many states ravaged by mega-droughts and widespread wildfires, while our coasts drown from a increases in sea levels, which are climbing inches a decade. This Planetary Purgatory is the likely future facing our country before mid-century—probably in our own lifetime—if the politics of denial and delay that have triumphed so far continues for another decade. Most Americans and many policy makers and journalists still don’t understand how global warming will ruin America for the next fifty generations if we don’t act quickly
The widespread confusion about our climate crisis is no accident. For several decades, corporate and conservative religious deniers that climate change is an urgent problem have run a well-financed propaganda campaign to spread myths that misinform debate. The U. S. has never had an efficient energy system. The Bush administration muzzled government climate scientists. The highest ranks of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have misinformed the public. Media failed to explain science and the science of CO2 and warming (special sections in newspapers every week on Religion, with rare, small reports on science). Many environmentalists have been unfocused and timid. But the science is clear and has been clear for over three decades: We humans are the primary cause of global warming, and we face a bleak future if we fail to act quickly.
But that humans are the primary cause is also the primary hope: we can reverse the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and assert leadership to bring in every country. We have cost-effective technologies today that can sharply reduce global-warming pollution. California, for example, has embraced critical clean-energy strategies that if adopted nationwide would deliver vast benefits—a sharp drop in use of fossil fuels and therefore foreign-oil imports (and our massive trade deficits), a large gain in air quality and health, and a big boost in high-wage, high-tech jobs. But this hopeful future will happen only if the President and Congress join together to create a super-Manhattan Project (that built the atom bomb).
Time is short. We have at most a decade to sharply reverse course. If we fail to act in time, global warming will profoundly and irreversibly remake every aspect of American life. For example, no other nation has as much wealth along its shores. As catastrophic sea-level rises, we will be overwhelmed by urban triage—deciding which sea-side towns and cities can be saved. Katrina reveals what is to come for this country.
These books will put fire in your belly and set your hair on fire. (Dick from Hell and High Water).
VOLUNTEERS
Coordinator: Dick Bennett, 442-4600 (always glad to be replaced)
Moderator: Carl Barnwell
Greeter: Leonard Schulte
Publicity Campaign (using Dick’s Guide):
Photos: Aubrey Shepherd
Video:
Flyer and Poster:
Distribution of Flyer and Poster:
News Release (traditional): Dick
News Release (electronic): Aaron?
NEW BOOKS ON CLIMATE BREAKDOWN (thanks to Art for several annotations
Nightbird Books has a large display of these and related books.
This Forum focuses on the realities of warming, on the need 1) to return to 350 PPM CO2 in atmosphere 2) quickly. The books marked with an asterisk tentatively seem to be especially suitable.
*David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing theNext 100,000 years of Earth's climate. This is somewhat science oriented, would be enjoyed by a scientist, engineer, etc. (Art) “This is the best book about carbon dioxide and climate change that I have read.” James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Not only are massive climate changes coming if we humans continue on our current path, but many of these changes will last for millennia….This is the book for anyone who wishes to really understand what cutting-edge science tells us about the effects we are having, and will have, on our future climate.” Richard Alley. [Steve Boss]
*Tim Flannery. The Weather Makers. This is the first book I read about climate change. For example, I first learned there about the inevitable submersion of many Pacific islands. Interesting reading. (Dick)
Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: why we need a green revolution, and how it can renew America. Again, this book is more about energy and "being green" than about global warming. It sends out a good, positive message that most people can identify with. (Art)
Fred Krupp (Pres of Environmental Defense Fund) & Miriam Horn, Earth: the sequel. The race to reinvent energy and stop global warming. This book looks more at energy than it does at global warming, has lots of suggestions for alternative energy and energy conservation. (Art)
*James Lovelock. The Vanishing Face of Gaia A Final Warning. Basic Books, 2009. 288 pp Lovelock argues that climatic change is likely to lead to a hotter Earth able to sustain only a small fraction of the world's current population. Hot off the press. (Dick)
*Mark Lynas, Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet. For general readers, it will wake people up. It tells us what will happen with 1 degree of warming, then with 2 degrees, ...and finally with 6 degrees. By about 3 degrees, things are getting really bad. (Dick) [Jonathan Gibbs]
Arjun Makhijani, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. eRoad Map for U.S. Energy Policy: Creating a Carbon Free & Nuclear ... The Plan: We can eliminate carbon emissions from the US energy system by 2050 without relying on nuclear power, and we have a plan to do it! The Carbon-Free ... www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/ - [PPT] Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. 17 February 2009. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. 301-270-5500 ... www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/.../CFNF.Slides.2009-02-17.part1_.ppt - Similar Energy Policy, IEER's latest book, available free ...iicph.org/ieer-book –
Bill McKibben. Fight Global Warming Now: The Handbook for Taking Action in Your Community. Holt, 2007.
*George Monbiot. Heat. This is the 2nd book I read on CO2 and planetary heating, and it had a stronger effect upon me then did Flannery’s probably because I was understanding the scientific discussions better, though some chapters were very slow going. Full of arresting stories; for example, his chapter on the extraordinary quantify of CO2 produced by airplanes came as a surprise, since I had only read about cars before. Monbiot has spoken and written repeatedly that the IPCC report and his own book are too optimistic, and I think he was the first I encountered to urge a change from “warming” to “breakdown.” (Dick)
*Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic Books, 2009. How religious ideologues, an education system weak in science, science-ignorant politicians, and the corporate media have collaborated to create this dangerous condition and how scientists have failed to counter it. [Ryan Bancroft] See: The Republican War on Science. “A well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right-wing’s assault on science and scientists.”
*Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: The Global Warming Solution. Harper Perennial, 2007. Even though this books was published in 2007 (and therefore written in 2006), it seems up-to-date, and that, his book reveals, is because a scientific consensus about warming existed by 2006. The book is very clear reading, punctuated by gong after gong of reality. (Dick)
Eric Roston. The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Geratest Threat. Walker, 2008. A history of carbon, of carbon chemistry and chemists, and of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and climate breakdown. Packed with interesting anecdotes, interspersed with explanation of the developing science, and moments of powerful summation. For example, this explanation of why I was uneasy about the Weather Channel’s air quality reporting never mentioning CO2: “The invisibility of carbon dioxide emissions to the naked eye itself is part of the reason it has been so easy for deniers to confuse the public about dangerous man-made global warming for more than twenty years.”(172 in the midst of an account of Charles David Keeling’s CO2 research); and Keeling’s empirical proof of the rise of CO2: “When Keeling’s first apparatus was set up at Mauna Loa, the reading was 313pp. Today it has passed 383ppm….Up it goes, 2ppm a year or so, and accelerating.” (Dick)
*--Schweiger, Larry. Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth. Fulcrum, 2009. The causes and effects of global warming on our ecosystems, human life, wildlife. “our best chance toward a future we will be proud to leave future generations,” Robert Redford. (Dick) [Joanna Pollock]
*James Speth. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale UP, 2008. I recall Art saying this is excellent. It explains why capitalism is a root cause of climate collapse. (Dick)
(If you want a step by step explanation of how to set up
Twitter here is the link for that. Twitter Activism Step-By-Step: http://tcxs.net/step_by_step.php )
-- The clearest succinct statement I as a general citizen have read recently about the accelerating dangers of climate breakdown is the editorial of The Nation (August 3/10, 2009), “The G-8 Abdicates.” . Here’s a sample: “Now comes the really bad news: we are already at 387 ppm. And at current rates atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are set to double by the middle of the century, resulting in catastrophic rise in sea levels,” which would “utterly transform civilization as we know it,” unless “emissions are drastically reduced soon.” The Nation recommends three solutions: 1) the rich nations “must cut their carbon emissions radically and quickly,” 2) they “must spend enormous sums of money to subsidize the transformation of developing economies away from coal and oil toward carbon-neutral forms of green energy,” and 3)”there must be massive investment in developing alternative energy sources.” (Also see Sharon Begley, “Climate-Change Calculus: Why It’s Even Worse Than We Feared,” Newsweek, August 3, 2009, about the surprises scientists have experienced recently regarding the unexpected worsening of Arctic sea ice loss, of Greenland mass loss, of permafrost melting, and more. “Given the pathetic response to global warming, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate.”) The media are waking up and speaking out against the deniers, delayers, and scammers.
Thanks, Dick
Dear Dick,
Tell Companies to Demand the US Chamber of Commerce Stop Denying Global Warming
We've rallied, we've sent messages to the EPA, and we've shown that Americans overwhelmingly support a clean energy economy that creates jobs and fights global warming.
Now the US Chamber of Commerce wants to silence us by threatening to sue the EPA in an effort to put "the science of climate change on trial." This ridiculous and dangerous stunt is engineered to undermine the EPA's authority to fight global warming, which we fought so hard to support.
Send a message to US Chamber of Commerce member companies telling them that this case is closed--responsible businesses know climate change is real and that we need to do something about it now.
The Chamber of Commerce already had an opportunity to air any legitimate concerns when the EPA held a 60 day comment period on its finding that global warming poses a threat to our health and welfare.
Where was the Chamber of Commerce then?
The Chamber wants to pretend that the 41,000 comments we collected supporting the EPA were never written, that the 2,000 people who rallied at the hearing in Seattle never showed up, and that the people speaking out in favor of action to fight global warming at the hearing in Arlington, VA did not out number the skeptics by 9 to 1.
It's time to tell responsible companies to stop letting a handful of polluters use the Chamber of Commerce to hold our Country hostage to last century's dirty energy technology--Sign the petition today!
Earlier this year, a group of big companies like Nike and Johnson and Johnson sent a letter to the Chamber asking them to more accurately reflect the majority of American businesses who are well aware that the science of global warming is settled, and who want to move the U.S. into a cleaner energy future.
But it seems the Chamber is siding with a minority of polluting energy companies, even though it is now clear that reducing global warming emissions is good for both the economy and the environment.
Sign our petition to these responsible companies urging them to back up their words with action--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce needs to come to its senses and side with the majority of its members who support action on global warming, or these companies should resign their memberships.
Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.
Mary Anne Hitt
Sierra Club Big Picture Campaign
P.S. After signing up, please forward this message to a friend! Chamber companies need to hear our message loud and clear.
Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dick Bennett
At end a letter from Sierra that emphasizes the importance of our Forum.
THANK YOU ALL, Dick
AUGUST 2009
CLIMATE BREAKDOWN BOOK FORUM
Sponsored by OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, and ECOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 18, FRIDAY, 6PM, NIGHTBIRD.
FOUR PANELISTS
Ryan Bancroft: Chris Mooney, Unscientific America
Jonathan Gibbs: Mark Lynas, Six Degrees
Steve Boss: David Archer, The Long Thaw
Joanna Pollock: Larry Schweiger, Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth.
DESCRIPTION
This OMNI Book Forum discusses the latest science-based scholarship explaining how the climate is breaking down with accelerating speed. Imagine inland United States average temperature a few degrees hotter within a few decades, with many states ravaged by mega-droughts and widespread wildfires, while our coasts drown from a increases in sea levels, which are climbing inches a decade. This Planetary Purgatory is the likely future facing our country before mid-century—probably in our own lifetime—if the politics of denial and delay that have triumphed so far continues for another decade. Most Americans and many policy makers and journalists still don’t understand how global warming will ruin America for the next fifty generations if we don’t act quickly
The widespread confusion about our climate crisis is no accident. For several decades, corporate and conservative religious deniers that climate change is an urgent problem have run a well-financed propaganda campaign to spread myths that misinform debate. The U. S. has never had an efficient energy system. The Bush administration muzzled government climate scientists. The highest ranks of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have misinformed the public. Media failed to explain science and the science of CO2 and warming (special sections in newspapers every week on Religion, with rare, small reports on science). Many environmentalists have been unfocused and timid. But the science is clear and has been clear for over three decades: We humans are the primary cause of global warming, and we face a bleak future if we fail to act quickly.
But that humans are the primary cause is also the primary hope: we can reverse the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and assert leadership to bring in every country. We have cost-effective technologies today that can sharply reduce global-warming pollution. California, for example, has embraced critical clean-energy strategies that if adopted nationwide would deliver vast benefits—a sharp drop in use of fossil fuels and therefore foreign-oil imports (and our massive trade deficits), a large gain in air quality and health, and a big boost in high-wage, high-tech jobs. But this hopeful future will happen only if the President and Congress join together to create a super-Manhattan Project (that built the atom bomb).
Time is short. We have at most a decade to sharply reverse course. If we fail to act in time, global warming will profoundly and irreversibly remake every aspect of American life. For example, no other nation has as much wealth along its shores. As catastrophic sea-level rises, we will be overwhelmed by urban triage—deciding which sea-side towns and cities can be saved. Katrina reveals what is to come for this country.
These books will put fire in your belly and set your hair on fire. (Dick from Hell and High Water).
VOLUNTEERS
Coordinator: Dick Bennett, 442-4600 (always glad to be replaced)
Moderator: Carl Barnwell
Greeter: Leonard Schulte
Publicity Campaign (using Dick’s Guide):
Photos: Aubrey Shepherd
Video:
Flyer and Poster:
Distribution of Flyer and Poster:
News Release (traditional): Dick
News Release (electronic): Aaron?
NEW BOOKS ON CLIMATE BREAKDOWN (thanks to Art for several annotations
Nightbird Books has a large display of these and related books.
This Forum focuses on the realities of warming, on the need 1) to return to 350 PPM CO2 in atmosphere 2) quickly. The books marked with an asterisk tentatively seem to be especially suitable.
*David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing theNext 100,000 years of Earth's climate. This is somewhat science oriented, would be enjoyed by a scientist, engineer, etc. (Art) “This is the best book about carbon dioxide and climate change that I have read.” James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Not only are massive climate changes coming if we humans continue on our current path, but many of these changes will last for millennia….This is the book for anyone who wishes to really understand what cutting-edge science tells us about the effects we are having, and will have, on our future climate.” Richard Alley. [Steve Boss]
*Tim Flannery. The Weather Makers. This is the first book I read about climate change. For example, I first learned there about the inevitable submersion of many Pacific islands. Interesting reading. (Dick)
Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: why we need a green revolution, and how it can renew America. Again, this book is more about energy and "being green" than about global warming. It sends out a good, positive message that most people can identify with. (Art)
Fred Krupp (Pres of Environmental Defense Fund) & Miriam Horn, Earth: the sequel. The race to reinvent energy and stop global warming. This book looks more at energy than it does at global warming, has lots of suggestions for alternative energy and energy conservation. (Art)
*James Lovelock. The Vanishing Face of Gaia A Final Warning. Basic Books, 2009. 288 pp Lovelock argues that climatic change is likely to lead to a hotter Earth able to sustain only a small fraction of the world's current population. Hot off the press. (Dick)
*Mark Lynas, Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet. For general readers, it will wake people up. It tells us what will happen with 1 degree of warming, then with 2 degrees, ...and finally with 6 degrees. By about 3 degrees, things are getting really bad. (Dick) [Jonathan Gibbs]
Arjun Makhijani, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. eRoad Map for U.S. Energy Policy: Creating a Carbon Free & Nuclear ... The Plan: We can eliminate carbon emissions from the US energy system by 2050 without relying on nuclear power, and we have a plan to do it! The Carbon-Free ... www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/ - [PPT] Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. 17 February 2009. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. 301-270-5500 ... www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/.../CFNF.Slides.2009-02-17.part1_.ppt - Similar Energy Policy, IEER's latest book, available free ...iicph.org/ieer-book –
Bill McKibben. Fight Global Warming Now: The Handbook for Taking Action in Your Community. Holt, 2007.
*George Monbiot. Heat. This is the 2nd book I read on CO2 and planetary heating, and it had a stronger effect upon me then did Flannery’s probably because I was understanding the scientific discussions better, though some chapters were very slow going. Full of arresting stories; for example, his chapter on the extraordinary quantify of CO2 produced by airplanes came as a surprise, since I had only read about cars before. Monbiot has spoken and written repeatedly that the IPCC report and his own book are too optimistic, and I think he was the first I encountered to urge a change from “warming” to “breakdown.” (Dick)
*Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic Books, 2009. How religious ideologues, an education system weak in science, science-ignorant politicians, and the corporate media have collaborated to create this dangerous condition and how scientists have failed to counter it. [Ryan Bancroft] See: The Republican War on Science. “A well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right-wing’s assault on science and scientists.”
*Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: The Global Warming Solution. Harper Perennial, 2007. Even though this books was published in 2007 (and therefore written in 2006), it seems up-to-date, and that, his book reveals, is because a scientific consensus about warming existed by 2006. The book is very clear reading, punctuated by gong after gong of reality. (Dick)
Eric Roston. The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Geratest Threat. Walker, 2008. A history of carbon, of carbon chemistry and chemists, and of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and climate breakdown. Packed with interesting anecdotes, interspersed with explanation of the developing science, and moments of powerful summation. For example, this explanation of why I was uneasy about the Weather Channel’s air quality reporting never mentioning CO2: “The invisibility of carbon dioxide emissions to the naked eye itself is part of the reason it has been so easy for deniers to confuse the public about dangerous man-made global warming for more than twenty years.”(172 in the midst of an account of Charles David Keeling’s CO2 research); and Keeling’s empirical proof of the rise of CO2: “When Keeling’s first apparatus was set up at Mauna Loa, the reading was 313pp. Today it has passed 383ppm….Up it goes, 2ppm a year or so, and accelerating.” (Dick)
*--Schweiger, Larry. Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth. Fulcrum, 2009. The causes and effects of global warming on our ecosystems, human life, wildlife. “our best chance toward a future we will be proud to leave future generations,” Robert Redford. (Dick) [Joanna Pollock]
*James Speth. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale UP, 2008. I recall Art saying this is excellent. It explains why capitalism is a root cause of climate collapse. (Dick)
(If you want a step by step explanation of how to set up
Twitter here is the link for that. Twitter Activism Step-By-Step: http://tcxs.net/step_by_step.php )
-- The clearest succinct statement I as a general citizen have read recently about the accelerating dangers of climate breakdown is the editorial of The Nation (August 3/10, 2009), “The G-8 Abdicates.” . Here’s a sample: “Now comes the really bad news: we are already at 387 ppm. And at current rates atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are set to double by the middle of the century, resulting in catastrophic rise in sea levels,” which would “utterly transform civilization as we know it,” unless “emissions are drastically reduced soon.” The Nation recommends three solutions: 1) the rich nations “must cut their carbon emissions radically and quickly,” 2) they “must spend enormous sums of money to subsidize the transformation of developing economies away from coal and oil toward carbon-neutral forms of green energy,” and 3)”there must be massive investment in developing alternative energy sources.” (Also see Sharon Begley, “Climate-Change Calculus: Why It’s Even Worse Than We Feared,” Newsweek, August 3, 2009, about the surprises scientists have experienced recently regarding the unexpected worsening of Arctic sea ice loss, of Greenland mass loss, of permafrost melting, and more. “Given the pathetic response to global warming, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate.”) The media are waking up and speaking out against the deniers, delayers, and scammers.
Thanks, Dick
Dear Dick,
Tell Companies to Demand the US Chamber of Commerce Stop Denying Global Warming
We've rallied, we've sent messages to the EPA, and we've shown that Americans overwhelmingly support a clean energy economy that creates jobs and fights global warming.
Now the US Chamber of Commerce wants to silence us by threatening to sue the EPA in an effort to put "the science of climate change on trial." This ridiculous and dangerous stunt is engineered to undermine the EPA's authority to fight global warming, which we fought so hard to support.
Send a message to US Chamber of Commerce member companies telling them that this case is closed--responsible businesses know climate change is real and that we need to do something about it now.
The Chamber of Commerce already had an opportunity to air any legitimate concerns when the EPA held a 60 day comment period on its finding that global warming poses a threat to our health and welfare.
Where was the Chamber of Commerce then?
The Chamber wants to pretend that the 41,000 comments we collected supporting the EPA were never written, that the 2,000 people who rallied at the hearing in Seattle never showed up, and that the people speaking out in favor of action to fight global warming at the hearing in Arlington, VA did not out number the skeptics by 9 to 1.
It's time to tell responsible companies to stop letting a handful of polluters use the Chamber of Commerce to hold our Country hostage to last century's dirty energy technology--Sign the petition today!
Earlier this year, a group of big companies like Nike and Johnson and Johnson sent a letter to the Chamber asking them to more accurately reflect the majority of American businesses who are well aware that the science of global warming is settled, and who want to move the U.S. into a cleaner energy future.
But it seems the Chamber is siding with a minority of polluting energy companies, even though it is now clear that reducing global warming emissions is good for both the economy and the environment.
Sign our petition to these responsible companies urging them to back up their words with action--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce needs to come to its senses and side with the majority of its members who support action on global warming, or these companies should resign their memberships.
Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.
Mary Anne Hitt
Sierra Club Big Picture Campaign
P.S. After signing up, please forward this message to a friend! Chamber companies need to hear our message loud and clear.
Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dick Bennett
Friday, August 14, 2009
Carbon Caps Task Force to meet at 1:30 p.m. Sunday, August 16, 2009, at OMNI's office in the usual place on Maple Avenue
Dear CCTF,
We will be having a meeting this Sunday, August 16th, at 1:30 PM in the UCM down under area, OMNI's usual, though now only temporary, abode. Please come if you are able.
Attached, you will find the meeting's agenda.
We will discuss CCTF's direction, with a heavy focus on action, and then delegate the concrete (or, more appropriately, green) tasks that arise from our discussion. Join in guiding our city and nation's future!
Hope to see you there!
Ryan Bancroft
(479) 799-9065
rpbancroft@gmail.com
We will be having a meeting this Sunday, August 16th, at 1:30 PM in the UCM down under area, OMNI's usual, though now only temporary, abode. Please come if you are able.
Attached, you will find the meeting's agenda.
We will discuss CCTF's direction, with a heavy focus on action, and then delegate the concrete (or, more appropriately, green) tasks that arise from our discussion. Join in guiding our city and nation's future!
Hope to see you there!
Ryan Bancroft
(479) 799-9065
rpbancroft@gmail.com
Monday, August 10, 2009
PSC chairman spins threat of major ratepayer costs if coal-fired plant not built
Gladys - I believe it was you who asked, at the CCTF meeting a week ago, what was the effect and the status of the recent Ark Appeal Court's judgement against the Turk coal plant. This rather long article is a pretty complete answer to that question. Cheers - Art
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0500
From: slcox1@aep.com
Subject: Fw: PSC Chairman Suskie comments on court of appeals ruling of SWEPCO
Turk plant - Ark Business
Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant
PSC Chairman Paul Suskie: "If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period."
By Jamie Walden
8/10/2009
"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."
Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant
By Jamie Walden - 8/10/2009
If Southwestern Electric Power Co. can't complete its embattled John W. Turk Jr. coal-fired power plant in Hempstead County, Swepco customers in Arkansas and elsewhere could be on the hook for more than $876 million.
The case, now on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, appears to hinge on three major issues, one of which could permanently alter the approval process for power plants in Arkansas.
In early 2007, three private hunting clubs and a family trust launched an offensive on the Turk plant, claiming it would harm the environment. In June, the plaintiffs won their case in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The argument by Hempstead County Hunting Club Inc., Po-Boy Land Co. Inc., Yellow Creek Corp. and Shultz Family Management Co. targeted the approval procedure by the Arkansas Public Service Commission and simultaneously argued that Swepco didn't adequately document a need for the Turk plant or its evaluation of alternative locations.
The PSC regulates the construction and location of power plants under the Utility Facility Environmental & Economic Protection Act of 1973. A company must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility & Public Need, or CECPN, to build a plant.
The PSC also wields the authority to approve the transmission lines that transport the power generated by the plant.
Ever since legislators wrote the utility act in 1973, the PSC has interpreted the method of handing down these approvals in one consistent way. But recently the Arkansas Court of Appeals said the PSC has been doing it wrong all this time.
And/Or
The contentious clause grants the Public Service Commission exclusive and final jurisdiction "for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location, financing, construction and operation of electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities in a single proceeding."
The PSC has, for the past 36 years, interpreted the "single proceeding" to mean an issue is heard solely by the commission. "Not in a district court or a circuit court here, not in front of one state agency here, have it all in one place," PSC Chairman Paul Suskie said.
Furthermore, the use of the word "and" in that construction - "electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities" - has led the PSC to handle the construction of a plant in one docket and the transmission lines in another docket. Despite the division of those hearings, the PSC thought it was following the law because the proceeding was held by one body.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, however, interpreted that phrase to mean the plant construction, transmission lines and associated facilities should all be part of one hearing.
"Piecemeal consideration of all the matters concerning a generating plant and its transmission lines corrupts the spirit and letter of the law," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said that Ed Dillon, an attorney with Entergy in 1973 who helped the PSC staff write the legislation, filed the first application for the White Bluff coal-powered plant in Redfield just months after the legislation was passed. Dillon, with first-hand knowledge of the law, separated the plant application from the transmission lines application.
"It's pretty compelling to me when the attorneys that wrote the law then months later apply it that way," Suskie said.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and was unmoved by the "we've always done it this way" argument.
"Significantly, the APSC's procedure of separating generating plants from transmission lines in CECPN proceedings has never been challenged in a court proceeding. The mere fact that the practice has gone unchallenged cannot create a presumption that it is proper," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said the PSC contemplated the transmission lines in the first proceeding, but didn't approve the transmission line sites until the second hearing. However, he said that in the first proceeding to approve the plant, the PSC dictated certain rules that Swepco must follow when siting the transmission lines.
The PSC addressed the transmission lines "on the front end because in the orders, we put conditions upon it. And some of those conditions were, 'You could not run transmission lines over sensitive areas and the interveners' property,'" Suskie said.
In this case, the hunting clubs were some of those interveners.
The determination of the sites where the transmission lines would run, however, occurred during a different proceeding. And the plaintiffs argued that affected parties, such as property owners, should know the whole plan, including the sites of the transmission lines, before a plant is approved.
Part of the commission's duty, though, is to make the process "as expeditious as possible." Separating the hearings does just that, Suskie said.
"If you did all those at once, it would extend the time frame. ... It could easily run two years, but the statute requires the Arkansas commission to do it as 'expeditiously as possible,'" Suskie said.
"In the way this case was handled, the Turk plant was approved. And then after it was approved, [Swepco] continued with the processes for approvals, the air permit and so forth. Well, after that took place, we were still in the process of siting the transmission lines."
The PSC approved the Turk plant in November 2007, and then finally gave the nod to the plant's transmission lines in January.
The division of hearings can also be convenient for out-of-state businesses. Because a plant, depending on the size, can often take longer to build than the laying of transmission lines, the time needed to bring an operation online is shorter if a business can start earlier on the plant.
A Question of Need
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the question of whether two PSC proceedings complies with the law - if, that is, the high court chooses to hear the case when it reconvenes after Labor Day - the plaintiffs still allege there is no need for the Turk plant. And proving need is one of the first hoops through which a utility provider must jump before getting a CECPN.
Charles Nestrud of Chisenhall Nestrud & Julian PA of Little Rock, which represents the groups challenging the project, pointed to Swepco's market in Texas.
Because transmission lines for the Turk plant cross state lines, Swepco also had to present its case before public service commissions in Texas and Louisiana.
"Swepco's need has deteriorated. In the Texas proceeding, they couldn't project that they needed this power plant because the need had evaporated," Nestrud said. "If you look at their latest [annual report], their wholesale sales are down, their retail sales are down."
Paul Chodak, president and chief operating officer of Swepco, disputed the notion that the need for the Turk plant had disappeared.
"Now, have we seen an economic downturn? Sure, we've seen an economic downturn. But we're building this plant to last the next 40 years, really the next 60 years," Chodak said. "So what the economy does in a two-year time frame is not the basis by which you build a plant."
Nestrud also contended that a natural gas plant makes more fiscal and environmental sense than a coal plant.
"We believe that now with the cost of this plant having escalated the way it has, with the gas prices having decreased below anybody's projections, and with the cost of carbon-capture for coal plants, this plant could never survive in a cost comparison of alternatives," Nestrud said.
Chodak said Swepco aims for energy diversity with a current portfolio of 60 percent coal plants and 40 percent natural gas facilities.
"To point to one summer where natural gas prices are low - and I'm sure they're forecasted to stay low into the future - I would urge you to go back and look at what gas prices were last year," Chodak said.
"The certainty about forecasts is that they are wrong. I don't know if they are wrong high or if they're wrong low."
Alternative Locations
Finally, the Court of Appeals cried foul at the treatment of alternative locations during the process.
"Swepco's application states that the Hempstead site was selected because it was large enough to accommodate the facility, had water supply, had nearby rail access, and had a property owner willing to sell," the appellate court wrote. "The other sites were not mentioned.
"Staff witness Clark Cotton admitted that Swepco's [environmental impact statement] did not contain a description of the comparative merits and detriments of each alternative location as required" by a section of the utility act.
Plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud agreed. "They didn't look at need and compare that to environmental impacts and to alternatives that were available. So when all that occurs, I don't agree that it's a forgone conclusion that they're going to get a certificate."
Court of Appeals Judge Josephine Linker Hart, in her concurring opinion, addressed what has become a major point of controversy in the case: why the "mostly idle" Union Power Station plant in El Dorado, owned by Entegra Power Group LLC, wasn't considered as an alternative location.
Suskie said that Entegra didn't bid on the Arkansas project and thereby fulfill certain requirements held by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. For the past 10 years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has required utilities to plan by region because transmission lines cross state borders, multiple states are involved in approving a project like the Turk plant.
"The [Louisiana commission] asked for proposals to meet that need, and Entegra never bid."
Arkansas and Texas didn't require Swepco to solicit bids.
Entegra later tried to intervene in the Arkansas docket. Though Suskie wasn't on the PSC at the time, he said the commission saw that move by Entegra as an attempt to block a competitor from entering the market.
"They didn't bid at the proper time. And then they wanted to intervene in the Arkansas docket essentially to block the plant from being built because it's competition," Suskie said.
Holding the Bag
Although Swepco, which has 113,500 customers in Arkansas, has the most cash in play, other parties stand to be affected by the outcome of the case.
The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., which has about 490,000 Arkansas customers, has a 12 percent ownership stake in the plant.
If the Supreme Court takes on the case and sides with the Court of Appeals, Swepco would be forced to restart what has been a multiple-year application process. And if plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud is right and Swepco can't demonstrate a need for the plant this time around, customers would be left holding the $876 million bag.
According to Swepco's most recent quarterly report, the company would seek to increase its rates to recoup $136 million in contract termination fees plus whatever it has invested in the plant thus far. Swepco had spent more than $740 million as of last week on the Turk plant, spokeswoman Kacee Kirschvink said.
"If the Turk Plant cannot be completed and placed in service, Swepco would seek approval to recover its prudently incurred capitalized construction costs including any cancellation fees and a return on unrecovered balances through rates in all of its jurisdictions," the filing states.
So what are the possible outcomes? Suskie said the Supreme Court could kick the case back to the PSC for more hearings, uphold the PSC's procedure or support the appellate court's decision.
"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0500
From: slcox1@aep.com
Subject: Fw: PSC Chairman Suskie comments on court of appeals ruling of SWEPCO
Turk plant - Ark Business
Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant
PSC Chairman Paul Suskie: "If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period."
By Jamie Walden
8/10/2009
"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."
Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant
By Jamie Walden - 8/10/2009
If Southwestern Electric Power Co. can't complete its embattled John W. Turk Jr. coal-fired power plant in Hempstead County, Swepco customers in Arkansas and elsewhere could be on the hook for more than $876 million.
The case, now on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, appears to hinge on three major issues, one of which could permanently alter the approval process for power plants in Arkansas.
In early 2007, three private hunting clubs and a family trust launched an offensive on the Turk plant, claiming it would harm the environment. In June, the plaintiffs won their case in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The argument by Hempstead County Hunting Club Inc., Po-Boy Land Co. Inc., Yellow Creek Corp. and Shultz Family Management Co. targeted the approval procedure by the Arkansas Public Service Commission and simultaneously argued that Swepco didn't adequately document a need for the Turk plant or its evaluation of alternative locations.
The PSC regulates the construction and location of power plants under the Utility Facility Environmental & Economic Protection Act of 1973. A company must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility & Public Need, or CECPN, to build a plant.
The PSC also wields the authority to approve the transmission lines that transport the power generated by the plant.
Ever since legislators wrote the utility act in 1973, the PSC has interpreted the method of handing down these approvals in one consistent way. But recently the Arkansas Court of Appeals said the PSC has been doing it wrong all this time.
And/Or
The contentious clause grants the Public Service Commission exclusive and final jurisdiction "for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location, financing, construction and operation of electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities in a single proceeding."
The PSC has, for the past 36 years, interpreted the "single proceeding" to mean an issue is heard solely by the commission. "Not in a district court or a circuit court here, not in front of one state agency here, have it all in one place," PSC Chairman Paul Suskie said.
Furthermore, the use of the word "and" in that construction - "electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities" - has led the PSC to handle the construction of a plant in one docket and the transmission lines in another docket. Despite the division of those hearings, the PSC thought it was following the law because the proceeding was held by one body.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, however, interpreted that phrase to mean the plant construction, transmission lines and associated facilities should all be part of one hearing.
"Piecemeal consideration of all the matters concerning a generating plant and its transmission lines corrupts the spirit and letter of the law," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said that Ed Dillon, an attorney with Entergy in 1973 who helped the PSC staff write the legislation, filed the first application for the White Bluff coal-powered plant in Redfield just months after the legislation was passed. Dillon, with first-hand knowledge of the law, separated the plant application from the transmission lines application.
"It's pretty compelling to me when the attorneys that wrote the law then months later apply it that way," Suskie said.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and was unmoved by the "we've always done it this way" argument.
"Significantly, the APSC's procedure of separating generating plants from transmission lines in CECPN proceedings has never been challenged in a court proceeding. The mere fact that the practice has gone unchallenged cannot create a presumption that it is proper," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said the PSC contemplated the transmission lines in the first proceeding, but didn't approve the transmission line sites until the second hearing. However, he said that in the first proceeding to approve the plant, the PSC dictated certain rules that Swepco must follow when siting the transmission lines.
The PSC addressed the transmission lines "on the front end because in the orders, we put conditions upon it. And some of those conditions were, 'You could not run transmission lines over sensitive areas and the interveners' property,'" Suskie said.
In this case, the hunting clubs were some of those interveners.
The determination of the sites where the transmission lines would run, however, occurred during a different proceeding. And the plaintiffs argued that affected parties, such as property owners, should know the whole plan, including the sites of the transmission lines, before a plant is approved.
Part of the commission's duty, though, is to make the process "as expeditious as possible." Separating the hearings does just that, Suskie said.
"If you did all those at once, it would extend the time frame. ... It could easily run two years, but the statute requires the Arkansas commission to do it as 'expeditiously as possible,'" Suskie said.
"In the way this case was handled, the Turk plant was approved. And then after it was approved, [Swepco] continued with the processes for approvals, the air permit and so forth. Well, after that took place, we were still in the process of siting the transmission lines."
The PSC approved the Turk plant in November 2007, and then finally gave the nod to the plant's transmission lines in January.
The division of hearings can also be convenient for out-of-state businesses. Because a plant, depending on the size, can often take longer to build than the laying of transmission lines, the time needed to bring an operation online is shorter if a business can start earlier on the plant.
A Question of Need
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the question of whether two PSC proceedings complies with the law - if, that is, the high court chooses to hear the case when it reconvenes after Labor Day - the plaintiffs still allege there is no need for the Turk plant. And proving need is one of the first hoops through which a utility provider must jump before getting a CECPN.
Charles Nestrud of Chisenhall Nestrud & Julian PA of Little Rock, which represents the groups challenging the project, pointed to Swepco's market in Texas.
Because transmission lines for the Turk plant cross state lines, Swepco also had to present its case before public service commissions in Texas and Louisiana.
"Swepco's need has deteriorated. In the Texas proceeding, they couldn't project that they needed this power plant because the need had evaporated," Nestrud said. "If you look at their latest [annual report], their wholesale sales are down, their retail sales are down."
Paul Chodak, president and chief operating officer of Swepco, disputed the notion that the need for the Turk plant had disappeared.
"Now, have we seen an economic downturn? Sure, we've seen an economic downturn. But we're building this plant to last the next 40 years, really the next 60 years," Chodak said. "So what the economy does in a two-year time frame is not the basis by which you build a plant."
Nestrud also contended that a natural gas plant makes more fiscal and environmental sense than a coal plant.
"We believe that now with the cost of this plant having escalated the way it has, with the gas prices having decreased below anybody's projections, and with the cost of carbon-capture for coal plants, this plant could never survive in a cost comparison of alternatives," Nestrud said.
Chodak said Swepco aims for energy diversity with a current portfolio of 60 percent coal plants and 40 percent natural gas facilities.
"To point to one summer where natural gas prices are low - and I'm sure they're forecasted to stay low into the future - I would urge you to go back and look at what gas prices were last year," Chodak said.
"The certainty about forecasts is that they are wrong. I don't know if they are wrong high or if they're wrong low."
Alternative Locations
Finally, the Court of Appeals cried foul at the treatment of alternative locations during the process.
"Swepco's application states that the Hempstead site was selected because it was large enough to accommodate the facility, had water supply, had nearby rail access, and had a property owner willing to sell," the appellate court wrote. "The other sites were not mentioned.
"Staff witness Clark Cotton admitted that Swepco's [environmental impact statement] did not contain a description of the comparative merits and detriments of each alternative location as required" by a section of the utility act.
Plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud agreed. "They didn't look at need and compare that to environmental impacts and to alternatives that were available. So when all that occurs, I don't agree that it's a forgone conclusion that they're going to get a certificate."
Court of Appeals Judge Josephine Linker Hart, in her concurring opinion, addressed what has become a major point of controversy in the case: why the "mostly idle" Union Power Station plant in El Dorado, owned by Entegra Power Group LLC, wasn't considered as an alternative location.
Suskie said that Entegra didn't bid on the Arkansas project and thereby fulfill certain requirements held by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. For the past 10 years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has required utilities to plan by region because transmission lines cross state borders, multiple states are involved in approving a project like the Turk plant.
"The [Louisiana commission] asked for proposals to meet that need, and Entegra never bid."
Arkansas and Texas didn't require Swepco to solicit bids.
Entegra later tried to intervene in the Arkansas docket. Though Suskie wasn't on the PSC at the time, he said the commission saw that move by Entegra as an attempt to block a competitor from entering the market.
"They didn't bid at the proper time. And then they wanted to intervene in the Arkansas docket essentially to block the plant from being built because it's competition," Suskie said.
Holding the Bag
Although Swepco, which has 113,500 customers in Arkansas, has the most cash in play, other parties stand to be affected by the outcome of the case.
The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., which has about 490,000 Arkansas customers, has a 12 percent ownership stake in the plant.
If the Supreme Court takes on the case and sides with the Court of Appeals, Swepco would be forced to restart what has been a multiple-year application process. And if plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud is right and Swepco can't demonstrate a need for the plant this time around, customers would be left holding the $876 million bag.
According to Swepco's most recent quarterly report, the company would seek to increase its rates to recoup $136 million in contract termination fees plus whatever it has invested in the plant thus far. Swepco had spent more than $740 million as of last week on the Turk plant, spokeswoman Kacee Kirschvink said.
"If the Turk Plant cannot be completed and placed in service, Swepco would seek approval to recover its prudently incurred capitalized construction costs including any cancellation fees and a return on unrecovered balances through rates in all of its jurisdictions," the filing states.
So what are the possible outcomes? Suskie said the Supreme Court could kick the case back to the PSC for more hearings, uphold the PSC's procedure or support the appellate court's decision.
"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."
Gathering at old courthouse to demonstrate Arkansas' attitude on threat of climate change
Location is College and Mountain Streets in front of old Courthouse.
From: Gladys tiffany
Subject: Beach Party for climate change Monday at noon
To: omninews@listserv.uark.edu
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:49 PM
Hi OMNI folks...
Bring your beach towel to the
Beach Party for Climate Change
Monday, August 10, 12:00 noon
Please, let's not let the teabaggers take the spotlight on this critical issue.
If you have questions call Ryan Boswell at 479-284-1933.
Gladys Tiffany
www.omnicenter.org
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
From: Gladys tiffany
Subject: Beach Party for climate change Monday at noon
To: omninews@listserv.uark.edu
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:49 PM
Hi OMNI folks...
Bring your beach towel to the
Beach Party for Climate Change
Monday, August 10, 12:00 noon
Please, let's not let the teabaggers take the spotlight on this critical issue.
If you have questions call Ryan Boswell at 479-284-1933.
Gladys Tiffany
www.omnicenter.org
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Sunday and Monday feature big events for OMNI Center advocates for the earth
Please click on image to ENLARGE:
Astute people have told me to mention that the beach party is on Monday August 10th. Sorry to have missed that detail.
Gladys Tiffany
www.omnicenter.org
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Beach Party for Climate Change
Near Blanche Lincoln's Office
12:00 noon - College and Mountain Streets
Fayetteville
So Blanche Lincoln doesn't like cap and trade? Sure would be nice if we could give her a second opinion. Next Monday at noon the 1Sky Network will be holding a rally to say "It's getting hot in Arkansas". If you're brave enough for beach wear, you can come dressed for global warming. If that's too risque, wear a parka instead... or both. It's good to be prepared.
Anyway, the word is sifting around that our local teabaggers (low-tax advocates with loud voices) are planning to counter-demonstrate. It'd be such a bummer if there were more teabaggers then earth advocates. Can you take an hour off for the earth? If you have questions hit reply, or talk to 1Sky State Director Ryan Denham at edenham@uark.edu. This is too important an issue to leave to teabaggers. Jish.
Gladys Tiffany
Astute people have told me to mention that the beach party is on Monday August 10th. Sorry to have missed that detail.
Gladys Tiffany
www.omnicenter.org
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 -- gladystiffany@yahoo.com
Beach Party for Climate Change
Near Blanche Lincoln's Office
12:00 noon - College and Mountain Streets
Fayetteville
So Blanche Lincoln doesn't like cap and trade? Sure would be nice if we could give her a second opinion. Next Monday at noon the 1Sky Network will be holding a rally to say "It's getting hot in Arkansas". If you're brave enough for beach wear, you can come dressed for global warming. If that's too risque, wear a parka instead... or both. It's good to be prepared.
Anyway, the word is sifting around that our local teabaggers (low-tax advocates with loud voices) are planning to counter-demonstrate. It'd be such a bummer if there were more teabaggers then earth advocates. Can you take an hour off for the earth? If you have questions hit reply, or talk to 1Sky State Director Ryan Denham at edenham@uark.edu. This is too important an issue to leave to teabaggers. Jish.
Gladys Tiffany
Monday, August 3, 2009
Green Faith Alliance of Central Arkansas to meet by telephone with like-minded or curious Northwest Arkansas residents at UA business school
The Green Faith Alliance of Central Arkansas will meet with us by
telephone on Monday, August 3, at 5:30 pm. Our meeting will be held in
Willard J. Walker Hall, room 546 (fifth floor) on the Business School Campus area at the
University. Attached are directions (from I-540) to the Harmon
parking garage, which is directly across from Walker Hall. The cost
to park there is about $3 for an hour.
As you may recall from my previous email, we talked briefly about the
possibility of having a Green Faith Alliance of Arkansas (dropping the
word “central”) instead of forming a second group called Green Faith
Alliance of Northwest Arkansas. This way, there would be one group,
instead of two, and we might accomplish more by working together than
we can separately.
I am currently on vacation in Georgia. Vivian Hill from St. Paul’s
will be your host for this meeting.
Please RSVP accept or regret to Vivian at vhill@walton.uark.edu as
soon as you can.
We hope that you will be able to join us for this meeting. Again, the
details are:
· Monday, August 3rd
5:30 pm
Willard J Walker Hall, Room 546, U of A Campus
Many thanks to you and thanks for your ministry for the planet that we share.
Michele Halsell
telephone on Monday, August 3, at 5:30 pm. Our meeting will be held in
Willard J. Walker Hall, room 546 (fifth floor) on the Business School Campus area at the
University. Attached are directions (from I-540) to the Harmon
parking garage, which is directly across from Walker Hall. The cost
to park there is about $3 for an hour.
As you may recall from my previous email, we talked briefly about the
possibility of having a Green Faith Alliance of Arkansas (dropping the
word “central”) instead of forming a second group called Green Faith
Alliance of Northwest Arkansas. This way, there would be one group,
instead of two, and we might accomplish more by working together than
we can separately.
I am currently on vacation in Georgia. Vivian Hill from St. Paul’s
will be your host for this meeting.
Please RSVP accept or regret to Vivian at vhill@walton.uark.edu as
soon as you can.
We hope that you will be able to join us for this meeting. Again, the
details are:
· Monday, August 3rd
5:30 pm
Willard J Walker Hall, Room 546, U of A Campus
Many thanks to you and thanks for your ministry for the planet that we share.
Michele Halsell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
