Red, Green, and Blue

In what some view as a harbinger of the difficult political task of relicensing the aging stock of 1970s era nuclear reactors nationwide, Vermont’s state Senate exercised its uniquely-held state relicensing authority to reject a plan to keep the Vermont Yankee plant open beyond 2012.

The vote came at a time of controversy for the plant itself, after recent concerns about tritium leaks have gone public and as activists, protestors and lawmakers expressed concerns over the plant’s safety. By contrast, the vote came just one week after President Obama announced the first $8 billion in an expected $50 billion of government-guaranteed loans for new nuclear reactors, a plan the White House said was essential to help meet America’s growing energy needs from sources that do not emit carbon dioxide.

The confluence of events has made the question of nuclear power’s future a hot political and media item throughout the northeast in recent weeks. The Boston Globe has been the battle ground for some partisans, as a nuclear advocacy group’s comments on the leaks were met with return fire in letters to the editor citing a history of deception and misleading comments as justifying continued concerns about nuclear safety.

The issue continues to divide the environmental movement, with some groups seeming to resign themselves to grudging acceptance of the president’s plan and the fact that nuclear power may be here to stay. The concession continues a trend that began with a considerable watering down of energy legislation in the House and the introduction of a proposed Senate bill that encourages expanded offshore drilling and investment in clean coal. Still, with $11 billion in 2009’s stimulus package directed to clean tech, some green groups and Democrats on the Hill were willing to make the compromise.

Others, however, continue to vehemently oppose the idea of expanding nulcear power (or even relicensing the existing stock) on several fronts: safety of plant operation, national security, proliferation risk, unsolved waste disposal issues, and now, the financial gamble of guaranteeing loans to an industry that has a history of cost overruns and project delays.

The financial battle will be one that President Obama will have to weigh in deciding how hard to push his loan proposal. After all, if he is in for $50 billion in new stock, does not that commit the White House to the battles over relicensure by the Nuclear Regulatory Council? It would be a difficult messaging move to propose $50 billion in taxpayer-funded loans and then not weigh in on free relicensure of existing nuclear capacity. Still, the political players on his staff, with a wary eye toward 2010’s mid-terms and the 2012 election will surely be loathe to get too involved in what are destined to be nasty, emotional, local political fights over relicensure.

Of course, all renewable power sources in play today (unless you include large-scale hydro, which most greens and the federal energy bills do not) require heavy subsidy to meet parity with conventional power. All proposals at the federal level (and all existing state RPS, feed-in tariffs, etc.) put the burden of subsidy on ratepayers with some kind of add-on to the utility bill.

The difference is that nuclear requires those subsidies up front, for the capital-intensive build out of new plants, as opposed to on the back end where subsidies equalize the cost of capturing sun, wind or water on projects that have already been developed by entrepreneurs, investors and utilities. Customers (also know as taxpayers) are going to pay the freight one way or the other. But, with capital loans, the risk of default is dramatically increased.

Still, even as opponents stake claim to a new line of attack on the finance side, safety concerns remain nuclear’s number one bugaboo. The tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee do not help, and with relicensures looming, more stories about more of those kinds of problems will inevitably emerge. It also does not help that while few Americans actually know the story of or understand the meaning of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, those phrases have become bywords for a very vivid kind of catastrophic nuclear fallout.

Nuclear advocates are trying to change that perception. It will be a hard-won fight. If they can continue to attract hard-bitten greens with credibility in the movement that makes their most persuasive line of argument on safety a possibility. The argument goes that while there may be a small risk of a catastrophic meltdown event, that rationale assumes failure of the plant, its staff and regulatory oversight. While such an event would surely have tragic results, it would be mostly-local.

By contrast, climate science is nearing consensus on the fact that the use of GHG-emitting fuels like coal is globally cataclysmic in its very essence, when used properly as designed and planned. So, why should America write off any future for nuclear given the relatively small risk of major local damage, when the country is currently committed to a track that ensures worldwide harm? Another Globe letter layed out the framework for this variation of the Bush-Cheney “one-percent doctrine.”

It is an interesting argument to make. It is a tough one to sell. After all, these plants have to sit somewhere, and it will be difficult to find a local community where parents are willing to subject thier own childre to that risk – however small – in the name of the greater good. But, just like in the Revolution, the first shots in a major battle have come from New England, this time from the Green Mountain State. And, again, the repercussions will resonate all the way to Washington. But, who will emerge as the heroes? Only history will tell.

Don’t look now, but true to the cliche, the Baby New Year that Greens first met with hope (maybe even “HOPE”) nearly a year ago is now a haggard old man shuffling for the exit. Looking back to January 2009, the baby looks increasingly childish for having harbored a genuine – if now decidedly naive – belief that “this is the year, and Copenhagen is the place” for global action on climate change.

Yesterday’s announced agreement should not have surprised any moderately-close observer, neither should its vagueness nor its weakness. COP-15 was doomed to failure months ago when it became clear that the US could not even get a serious comprehensive climate bill through to the president, in spite of liberal supermajorities in both chambers and a White House believed to have “soft power” to spare.

Still, fallout is difficult to assess prospectively. But, now that the thing is actually done, it is time to tally the political score. What does failure in Copenhagen mean for US diplomacy in the context of China’s ascendancy and in the overall context of geopolitics? How will the agreement that Obama spearheaded play out in domestic politics for the rest of this session and into the mid-terms? Here are a few possibilities.

Geopolitics

Carbon is not the Issue – Cash Is

Climategate cannot claim much credit for derailing Copenhagen, the cake was already baked. But, the controversy over climate change science is sure to rage on in 2010, in part reinvigorated by the emails from East Anglia. Still, even if that fight does escalate, it will be too meager to derail the push for “environmental justice” that came into full flower in Copenhagen. Developing nations may no bones about their need – indeed, their expectation – for the West to cough up cash. Further, in part driven by domestic political pressure to “act,” developed nations like the US are committed to ponying up.

End of an Era?

With the question of dollars at the center of the table, the world is preparing to transition from the geopolitical “post-9/11″ epoch into a new one: Eco Cold War. If developing countries are to be taken at their word, the effects of climate change promise to be as problematic for security and human rights as they are in pure climate change terms. Whether those come to pass in fact is irrelevant, with no solid global agreement on climate change, regional agreements will proliferate and help to forge significant 21st century partnerships that will a) supplant the pacts that have become outdated since their creation in the post-WWII scrum, and b) fill vacuums in significant regions that were left unstable – in part – by the Cold War machinations of receding empires.

Domestic

Obama’s Shrinking Tent

Watch closely as reaction to the Copenhagen agreement plays out to see which US green groups wish to stay in the White House’s good graces. Establishment greens like Greenpeace were already angry about Waxman-Markey, and some grassroots groups like Friends of the Earth have already come out with disapproval for the two-and-a-half page pact. NRDC has stayed by his side through thick and thin this year, along with some others, but try as the White House might, this is going to be tough to spin. Obama simply cannot beat the drum for an entire year touting the existential significance of meaningful climate action and then try to reel it back when efforts fail. It won’t fly, and if they try to keep making it soar, it will only attenuate the damage.

Big Trouble in 2010’s Mid-Terms

Without a doubt, President Obama and the Democrats would have liked for something more to have come from Copenhagen – and not just philosophically, but also politically. With this agreement, they may have struck the most discordant note possible. The base is not pleased with the results on the global stage, but the deal might still be enough for the GOP to make some bones with moderates around the country who are looking at over 10% unemployment and starting to wonder just why Obama and Congressional Dems seem so concerned with a few degrees Centigrade over the next century. Brown Dogs are duking it out over the Senate climate bill and you have to wonder whether – as elections come ever closer – that bill ever even makes it to the floor now. With the Democratic house badly-divided, it could mean big trouble for Dems and a big mid-term swing in both chambers.

Climategate’s Encore

Climategate is not going to stop the global momentum for action. Too much is at stake. And, yes, I’m talking dollars. But, if the GOP does regain some footing in 2010, and the global trend toward conservatism (as evidenced in the last round of European elections) continues, this conference and this agreement could be leveraged to motivate an offensive against climate action. Until now, skeptics have been content to continue with business-as-usual and allow fringers and talking heads to fight the “junk science” fight. But, Greens have seen the first signs of more proactive cohesion from the opposition in 2009’s climate fights. Conservatives are preparing the first concerted backlash – as a movement – against energy and environmental reform.

Waxman-Markey, the Senate climate fight and Copenhagen all failed in 2009, due to the continuing legacy of ignorance, inertia and in-fighting that have marked the past thirty years of the fitful progress for the green movement. But, if they thought 2009 was a tough year, watch what happens now that the other side is actually spoiling for a fight.

Photo credit

A new Zogby poll showing declining concern about climate change in the Unites States also shows that those who are least able to afford rising energy prices–the kind of upward movement brought on by climate legislation–are the most likely to support climate and energy policies that would have that effect.

When it comes to the personal changes that may be required as part of a national plan of action to address climate change, Zogby says that 44 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government should act to reduce energy use in the U.S. even if that means significant personal lifestyle changes. Read the rest of this entry »

In this space last week, I wrote a column that I thought might draw the ire of some greens for its cynical outlook on Copenhagen. Instead, it drew a fair amount of attention from readers concerned that I had glossed over the significance of “Climategate.” Like that column, this one is not about Climategate in the broader sense, but about its impact on the goings-on this week in Denmark. And, as we look back at week one of COP-15, last week’s column looks to have been borne out in that context. Join me for this more complete review of the political freeze that has taken over the warming talks.

Climategate is Good as Gone…For Now – As expected, Climategate disappeared as fast as it rose to the top of Google’s search rankings. Worldwide, media reports are focusing on the very compelling, very well-packaged stories about climate change impact and emerging technologies that were in the can as this conference approached. The email controversy may well reemerge at the conclusion of the conference; and, as I noted in comments responding to reader comments to last week’s piece, Climategate may ultimately be seen as the sort of watershed moment that was needed to reignite some passion in this debate. But, at least in the world-within-the-world at Copenhagen this week, Climategate-stoked doubt about climate change is not the issue.

US Fizzles- After months of pressure and rhetoric in US politics, marked by doomsday scenarios that would befall the world should the US not have a climate change bill on the President’s desk before Copenhagen, the US delegation arrived with the following: an EPA declaration that was inevitable and had been dramatically undersold in favor of pushing for legislation; and, a December 10 announcement by a tri-partisan (including an independent) group of Senators, which purported to “outline the basics” for a domestic climate bill that might come to the floor in the spring. In a week when the President of the United States delivered what has to be the most impassioned defense of war in the history of Nobel Peace Prize acceptances, his delegation at the climate conference tried to claim leadership in a very tricky geopolitical negotiation after having failed to clear the relatively less complex partisan, political and special interest hurdles at home.

China Sizzles, But Where’s the Steak?- China is the Donald Trump of climate change action. Big promises, high-dollar investments. Big, big, big! 800 turbines in three gorges? Bring it on! Planting enough new trees to cover all of Norway? Why not! Just don’t ask them to cut emissions. First, it is not practical to do so, their growth makes it impossible. Second, they don’t have the money to pay for it (probably because it is all on loan to the US, but that is another column for another blog). And, the reports coming from state-controlled media do not offer much comfort. Long term, China looks like a promising green partner for the world. They are going to continue to develop clean energy technologies domestically and will continue to flood the global market with low-cost, Chinese-fabricated panels, blades and batteries.

Right now, the Chinese would be foolish to have fabricators sell those products to domestic buyers and capture the revenue in yuan when they could be sold overseas for more valuable dollars, Euros and pounds. Will they ever reach a tipping point where some of those items will stay in country instead of being produced exclusively for export? That tipping point appears to be approaching for jeans, TVs and other Chinese-made goods, but clean energy technology? Don’t hold your breath.

For signs of success in week two, watch the tail numbers of planes at Copenhagen Airport – It will be interesting to see who actually shows up in Copenhagen next week. We know President Obama is en route, but will the Russians, Chinese or Indians keep their dates to have heads of state make the trip to town? Probably. Will it move the needle? I doubt it.

In the end, the problem with Copenhagen cannot be solved by next week, no matter who is at the table. That problem can best be discerned in the verb tense most-often used in speeches, discussions and negotiations there: the future. For thirty-five years, the public (including skeptics) have been hearing about what WILL happen to the planet and about the technologies that WILL emerge to make clean energy affordable. The urgency has not come yet. The world is not ready. Let us hope that by the time we are, it is not too late.

Mean Joe Green #82: Sarah Palin’s HUGE Bus and Private Jet Book Tour

The other day I came across this post (‘Is Sarah Palin’s Book Tour Killing the Planet?’) on Wend Magazine’s blog. My response after reading the headline but before reading the article was “I’m SURE it is.” But after reading the article and thinking on it a bit more, there has to be a better explanation to the reason why she is touring the country on a GIGANTIC tour bus AND a private jet plane.

Well, ENN (Earth Nightly News) broke the news on the REAL reason…

Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons

Mean Joe Green Cartoon Archive

In the week leading up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, skeptics and political opponents are seizing on the emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit in an attempt to short circuit global action on carbon emission reductions. Given that COP-15 is a conference that brings together lead CLIMATE NEGOTIATORS from around the world, it is unlikely that all this noise on the “climate change racket” will have a discernable impact on what kind of agreement emerges.

Alas, Copenhagen is destined for a spot near the top of the ever-lengthening 2009 squandered opportunities list, but it will not because of efforts by climate change deniers who have nary a seat at the negotiating table. Sure, opponents may be able to queer domestic adoption of any deal that comes out of Copenhagen, but that fact was never in doubt — even before Climategate.

So, why will a compromise deal inevitably emerge before the need to compromise is present? Why is it that even with the world’s most passionate climate change honks all together in one room, the world still will not agree on collective action that takes us much beyond Kyoto?

Answers are found in these three persistent, irresolvable conflicts among those parties that are at the table:

Green In-Fighting – Is clean coal legitimate or a lark? Should we subsidize solar? If we do, can Chinese-fabricated PV claim the cash? Questions like these continue to dog greens in US legislation.

When the House passes a climate bill that is opposed by Greenpeace, that is all the evidence one needs to illustrate the fissures that have deepened in the clean energy and conservation communities. With no consensus, the US never got the comprehensive climate change bill that everyone insisted was a necessary prerequisite to Copenhagen – IF President Obama wanted to claim a credible mantle of leadership.

Those divisions only broaden on the global scale. There remains very public disagreement on the growth and sharing of civil nuclear technology. Other differences informed by national interest will mark the discussions and hamstring any chance of adopting hard targets that are actually backed by unified global strategies on renewable generation.

Developed versus Developing – China and India have mouths to feed – more every day. And, increasingly, those traditionally agrarian, subsistence economies are not only becoming energy-intensive manufacturing and service economies, but their citizens are expecting a higher quality of life. To deny these growing economies the chance to blossom is both hypocritical of the West and unrealistic, since reducing emissions in Asia would stagnate Western economies that rely on consumption of goods produced there.

China, India and others also argue that the West owes a “debt of pollution” that should be paid not only by reducing their own emissions, but also by directing resources to fund developing world emission reduction efforts. Proposals call for aid to come in the form of cash and transfer of emergent technologies. An extension of either is really politically palatable on a large scale for the US.

At What Cost? - One of the more compelling storiesthat will inevitably emerge in the mainstream media from the Copenhagen conference is that of Maldives. The tiny nation – an archipelago barely above sea level – not only faces cataclysmic consequences if global warming persists, it faces the possibility of total annihalation in the next century. While nations have been conquered and carved up throughout history, changing names and changing shapes frequently even in the years since World War II, humankind has never had a sovereign nation wiped off of the map. For Maldives, the question of Copenhagen is: “at what cost do we delay bold action on climate change?”

Maldives may have a compelling story, but it will not have much influence in Copenhagen. Ultimately, whatever agreement emerges will be the work of large countries that are only beginning to feel the hurt of climate change. Rich Western nations, emerging industrial countries in the former Eastern Bloc and Africa, and booming economies throughout Asia. If one of these countries were looking at climate change impacts manifest so vividly, there might be movement; but, for now, they are left to ponder ”at what cost to growth and consumer prices can we justify bold action on climate change?”

Not Enough ‘Energy’ in the ‘Environment’

“Climategate” will fade from the front pages — the emails won’t mean much once COP-15 gets underway. And, knowing that they are going home to face certain opposition from some factions anyway, you might think that delegates would show up in Copenhagen prepared to do something splashy. Especially given that much of the action needed will be undertaken at the national level, the more progressive states should be pushing for an agreement that will give them good aspirational benchmarking for domestic legislation, even if they know it cannot get ratified back home by some other attendees.

But, neither Western European noblesse oblige nor US self-interest (take your pick: green jobs, national security, environment) will be enough to overcome the competing interests that will confound consensus even among the climate change evangelists assembled in Copenhagen. And, from uncertainty follows inertia. It is not a hopeful holiday sentiment, but it is a realistic one. And, without some action soon, Christmas may not come to Maldives at all.

A federal court ruling handed down last week charged the Army Corps of Engineers with “gross negligence” that led to the catastrophic flooding in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. minced no words in issuing his ruling, saying that the corps failure to properly maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO) shipping channel directly contributed to the breaching levees that swamped much of New Orleans in 2005, a disaster from which many residents have yet to recover.
In his ruling, Judge Duval said that Corps of Engineers “shoddy oversight” of the shipping channel located southeast of New Orleans caused much of the flooding of St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward, two areas hit hardest flooding after Katrina smashed into the gulf coast.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mean Joe Green #80: Wind Turbine Syndrome Will Kill Us All!…If it Were Real.

Read the rest of this entry »

Call it the Obama effect or a last minute face saving tactic but the Obama Administration made it clear that it is willing to include national mitigation measures announced by the advanced developing countries in the international climate treaty to be discussed at Copenhagen next month.

In a joint statement the US and Chinese officials announced that the new climate treaty should be based on ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. This is the first time that the United States has agreed for different climate goals for developed and developing countries.

[B]oth sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mean Joe Green #78: Writing the Perfect Protest Sign

Rule #1: Resort to name calling/labeling
Rule #2: Never consider the other side’s motivation
Rule #3: Refer to rule 1 and 2.

I wish these folks were protesting the end result of the actual chain of events that will lead to their future joblessness, which is:
Decreasing demand for coal (due to health concerns for earthlings and earth)=lost jobs for coal miners=find another similar job to suit your skills=can’t because factory jobs have long been shipped overseas to skirt environmental regulations and to exploit cheaper labor=PICKET THAT!–picket lost middle class jobs, the shrinking middle class, and the growing disparity between the rich and poor!

These good people have a right to be angry–but not at the “Treehuggers” who want to put an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. Their hostility needs to be directed at the coal (throw in oil, plastic, and biotech) industry fat cats who have long made billions while poisoning the world (poisoning the world poisons those who live in said world).

Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons

Mean Joe Green Cartoon Archive